Agenda — Sonoma City Council, July 17, 2024 (part 1 of 2)

City Council:

John Gurney, Mayor
Patricia Farrar-Rivas, Vice
Mayor
Jack Ding
Sandra Lowe
Ron Wellander

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

OF THE SONOMA CITY COUNCIL
City Council Chambers, 177 First Street West
Wednesday, July 17, 2024
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/84876986131
6:00 PM Regular Meeting

ACCESSING PUBLIC MEETINGS
As a public service to the community, City Council meetings are held in-person, and viewable through a live webcast on the City’s CivicWeb Portal at https://sonomacity.civicweb.net/Portal/Video.aspx, City of Sonoma YouTube channel at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChZjUrg2rNLYxTgQHhFy-Tg, and televised on Comcast Cable Channel 27. Members of the public can also view the meeting via ZOOM, at https://us06web.zoom.us/j/84876986131.

If a technical issue arises with Zoom video or the listening phone dial-in option, the City Council meeting will continue unless a Council Member is participating remotely pursuant to the provisions of Assembly Bill 2449.

Members of the public who wish to address the Council by providing public comments during the meeting may do so in-person in the Council Chambers at 177 First Street West, where the meeting is being publicly held. As an alternative, members of the public may also provide written public comment submitted via the City’s online Public Comment form at https://sonomacity.civicweb.net/Portal/CitizenEngagement.aspx or by email to:
[email protected]
PROCESS FOR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC: There will be two opportunities for members of the public to address items not appearing on the agenda. The early public comment period, Agenda Item 1, will be limited to ten speakers. Each speaker will be allowed up to two minutes. Speakers who do not have an opportunity to speak during this time will be allowed to make their comments under the later public comment, Agenda Item 10.

When the Mayor announces these agenda items, please form a line to speak.

In the event a Council Member participates remotely for just cause or an emergency circumstance under Assembly Bill 2449, the City will allow for public comment through the Zoom link.

In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk (707) 933-2216. Notification 48 hours before the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

Be Courteous - TURN OFF your cell phones and watches while the meeting is in session.

The City Council may discuss and/or take action on any or all of the items listed on the agenda irrespective of how the items are described.

No new items will begin after 9:00pm unless a majority of the members present vote to allow the items to be heard.

Page 1 of 269 ends

Page
6:00 P.M. – REGULAR MEETING

CONVENE, CALL TO ORDER & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL (Farrar-Rivas, Wellander, Ding, Lowe, Gurney)

REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

1. PRESENTATIONS

1.1: Proclamation in Honor of the 20th Anniversary of the Napa to Sonoma Wine Country Half Marathon

1.2: Presentation Regarding the Early July Heat Event (Sarah Tracy, Senior Management Analyst)

2. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC
At this this time members of the public may address the Council on matters not listed on this agenda, but which are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Council. This public comment period will be limited to ten speakers. Each speaker will be allowed up to two minutes. Speakers who do not have an opportunity to speak during this time will be allowed to make public comment under Agenda Item 10 - SECOND PUBLIC COMMENT. Please form a line to speak.

Under State Law, unless otherwise permitted under the Ralph M. Brown Act, the merits of the matters presented under this item cannot be discussed or acted upon by the City Council at this time. For items appearing on the agenda, the public will be invited to make comments at the time the item comes up for Council consideration. Please begin by stating your name.

3. MEETING DEDICATIONS

4. COUNCILMEMBERS’ REPORTS AND COMMENTS

4.1: Committee Reports - Council Members are appointed to various boards and committees - local, county-wide and regional. Any updates from a council member will shared at this time. A list of all appointments is available on our City Website for easy reference.

5. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

6. CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS

7. CONSENT CALENDAR – CITY COUNCIL
All items listed on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and will be acted upon by a single motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless members of the Council or staff request specific items to be removed for separate action.

7.1: Waive further reading and Authorize Introduction and/or Adoption of Ordinances by Title Only. (Standard procedural action - no backup information provided)

7.2: Accept Minutes from the Regular Meetings of May 15, 2024, June 5, 2024, June 19,2024 and the Special Meetings of May 30, 2024 and June 6, 2024 (Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk)

05.15.2024 Regular Meeting Minutes

05.30.2024 Special Meeting Minutes
6 - 16

Page 2 of 269 ends

06.05.2024 Regular Meeting Minutes

06.05.2024 Special Meeting Minutes

06.19.2024 Regular Meeting Minutes

7.3: Adopt Resolutions 1) Calling for the Holding of a General Municipal Election to be Held on Tuesday, November 5, 2024, for the Election of Certain Officers as Required by the Provisions of the Laws of the State of California Relating to General Law Cities; and 2) Requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Sonoma to Consolidate a General Municipal Election to be Held on Tuesday, November 5, 2024 with the Statewide General Election to be Held on Tuesday, November 5, 2024 (Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk/Elections Official)
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolutions.

Agenda Report - 2024 Election - Pdf
17 - 21

7.4: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with Olaunu, LLC to provide As-Needed Engineering and Project Management Consulting Assistance in an Amount Not-To-Exceed $25,000.00 (Mike Berger, Public Works Director)
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolution.

Agenda Report - Olaunu LLC Contract Renewal - Pdf
22 - 55

7.5: Adopt a Resolution to: 1) Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with Horticultural Associates in an Amount Not to Exceed $50,000 Annually to Provide As-Needed Certified Arborist Services; 2) Reject All Proposals Received for On-Call Tree Maintenance Services; and 3) Direct Public Works Staff to Re-Issue a Request for Proposals for On-Call tree Maintenance Services (Mike Berger, Public Works Director) RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolution.

Agenda Report - Award Arborist & Proposal Rejections - Pdf 56 - 80

7.6: Adopt a Resolution Adopting the Plans and Specifications for the 2024 Citywide Slurry Seal Project No. 2401 (Project); Accepting Bids and Awarding a Contract to Pavement Coatings, Co.; Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Construction Contract in the Amount of $294,950.00, and Authorizing the City Manager to Approve $29,495.00 (10%) in Contingency (Mike Berger, Public Works Director)
RECCOMENDATION: Adopt the resolution.

Agenda Report - Project Award - Pdf
81 - 86

7.7: Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Sonoma Re-Establishing the Appropriations Limit for the Fiscal Year 2023-24 and Establishing the Appropriations Limit for the Fiscal Year 2024-25 (Prapti Aryal, Finance Director)
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolution.

Agenda Report - Appropriations Limits - Pdf
87 - 100

8. PUBLIC HEARING

8.1: Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision to Deny a Use Permit Amendment (UA-23-40) and Wine Tasting Use Permit (WTUP-24-1) That Would Have Authorized a Vacation Rental and Wine Tasting Facility at 301 First Street West Under the Adaptive Reuse Provisions of the City’s Development Code. The Appellant Requests the City Council Approve the Use Permit Amendment and Wine Tasting Use Permit and Give 101 - 238

Page 3 of 269 ends

Direction to Staff on Policy Issues Concerning the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance. (Jennifer Gates, AICP, Community Development Director)
RECOMMENDATION: Deny the appeal and adopt the attached draft City Council Resolution, titled “A Resolution Of the City Council of the City of Sonoma Denying an Appeal and Affirming the Planning Commission’s Decision on May 16, 2024 Denying the Amendment to the Use Permit (UA 23- 40) And Wine Tasting Use Permit (WTUP 24-1) Applications of Michael Ross to Allow a Vacation Rental and Wine Tasting Use Permit At 301 First Street West (APN 018-161-042)."
Agenda Report - Cooperage Appeal - Pdf
CC Memo - Revised Staff Recommendation

9. REGULAR CALENDAR – CITY COUNCIL
(Matters requiring discussion and/or action by the City Council)

9.1: Discussion, Consideration and Possible Actions Regarding Placing a City Sales Tax Measure on the November 5th, 2024 Ballot, Including:

1. A Resolution Calling for the Holding of a General Municipal Election to be Held on Tuesday, November 5, 2024, for the Submission to the Voters a Question Relating to a Transactions and Use Tax and Requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Sonoma to Consolidate ta General Municipal Election to be Held on November 5, 2024, with the Statewide General Election to be Held on the Date Pursuant to Section 10403 of the Election Code and Directing City Staff to Carry Out Related Actions; and

2. An Ordinance Amending Sonoma Municipal Code Chapter 3.12 Governing the City’s Transactions and Use Tax, Subject to Approval by the Voters, of a One-Half Cent General Transactions and Use Tax (David Guhin, City Manager)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions individually and by separate motion:

1. Adopt a Resolution Calling for the Holding of a General Municipal Election to be Held on Tuesday, November 5, 2024, for the Submission to the Voters a Question Relating to a Transactions and Use Tax and Requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Sonoma to Consolidate ta General Municipal Election to be Held on November 5, 2024, with the Statewide General Election to be Held on the Date Pursuant to Section 10403 of the Election Code and Direct City Staff to Carry Out Related Actions; and

2. Designate two City Council Members to author the argument in favor of the measure and authorize them to file a rebuttal to any timely filed argument against the measure; and

3. Introduce an Ordinance Amending Sonoma Municipal Code Chapter 3.12 Governing the City’s Transactions and Use Tax, Subject to Approval by the Voters, of a One-Half Cent General Transactions and Use Tax Agenda Report - Ballot Measure - Pdf
General Sales Tax Measure Presentation
239 - 269

10. SECOND COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC

Page 4 of 269 ends

At this this time members of the public who did not have the opportunity to speak during the early comment period may address the Council on matters not listed on this agenda, but which are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Council. Each speaker will be allowed up to two minutes. Please form a line to speak.

11. ADJOURNMENT
I do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing agenda was posted as legally required. Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk.
*********************************************************************************************************************************** Copies of all staff reports and documents subject to disclosure that relate to any item of business referred to on the agenda are usually available for public inspection the Wednesday before each regularly scheduled meeting at City Hall, located at No. 1 The Plaza, Sonoma CA. Any documents subject to disclosure that are provided to all, or a majority of all, of the members of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda after the agenda has been distributed will be made available for inspection at the City Clerk’s office, No. 1 The Plaza, Sonoma CA during regular business hours. If you challenge the action of the City Council in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described on the agenda or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at or prior to the public hearing.

City of Sonoma's Commission and Committee Roster: Commission & Committee Roster_Updated_Sept_27_2023 Appointments to Commission/Committees: The Council may establish and make appointments to a Council committee (made up of two Council Members) with respect to any item appearing on this agenda.

Closed Session: If action is taken during a Closed Session meeting that is required to be reported out at this meeting, the Council will return to Open Session and report out immediately. However, if the Council is unable to do so due to time constraints, it will report out at the immediately following Regular Council Meeting under "REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION".

Motion for Consideration: A Council Member voting with the majority on any item appearing on this agenda may move for reconsideration of that vote provided the motion is in conformance with the rules adopted by the Council governing such motions.

Page 5 of 269 ends

City Council:

John Gurney, Mayor
Patricia Farrar-Rivas, Vice Mayor
Jack Ding
Ron Wellander
Sandra Lowe

REGULAR MEETING MINUTES

OF THE SONOMA CITY COUNCIL
City Council Chambers
177 First Street West
Wednesday, May 15, 2024

6:00 PM Regular Meeting
Regular Meeting Minutes, May 15, 2024
6:00 P.M. – REGULAR MEETING

CONVENE, CALL TO ORDER, & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Gurney called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.

ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Mayor Gurney, Vice Mayor Farrar-Rivas, Council Member Wellander, Council Member Lowe, and Council Member Ding

REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
There was no Closed Session held.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Motion by Council Member Lowe, seconded by Vice Mayor Farrar-Rivas, to approve the agenda with Items 6 in front of general public comment and limiting the public comment time to 2 minutes per person. Motion carried unanimously.

1. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC
Rabbi Steve, Susan LaMonte, Ken Warnick, Rheem Barakrat, Alex Garcia, Allen Wolves, Tanya Marsh, Jen Miller, Katie Jute, Seth Donnelly, Lexi Beckard, Peter Standford, Sabina Cezar, Joy Mendez, Mandy Bolling, Casper, Celene, Resident of Sonoma Valley, Able Bolger, Kennith Hun, Rich Cross, Ariel Mihik, Tom Conlon, Tony Rollins, Jean Lois Camu, Alice King, Anika Wood, Petal Conlin, No Name Provided, Maria Barakrat, Jordan, Richard Price, Fred Allebach, Niko Karmer, Maximus Campos, and Zach provided public comments.

2. MEETING DEDICATIONS
None.

3. COUNCIL MEMBERS’ REPORTS AND COMMENTS
Council Member Ding also announced that Jeffrey Roush would be his direct appointment on the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Commission.

Council Member Farrar-Rivas attended a Sonoma Clean Power meeting on May 2, 2024, as well as their 10-Year Anniversary Celebration that evening. She was also able to attend opening night of the annual Tuesday Night Market.

Councilmember Lowe attended a Sonoma County Transportation Authority meeting on May 13, 2024.

Councilmember Wellander attended the “State of the District” hosted by the Sonoma Valley Unified School District on May 13, 2024. He also attended both a Water Advisory Committee meeting as well as a North Bay Watershed Association meeting.

Mayor Gurney attended a Mayors and Councilmembers Association Board of Directors meeting on May 9, 2024.

4. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Acting City Manager Gates reported that the City will have its second annual Pride Celebration event on May 30, 2024. She reported that water customers will receive postcards shortly providing details about the current Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) project. The first round of meter replacements will begin June 1, 2024. Ms. Gates officially recognized the Public Works crew, as next week is National Public Works Appreciation Week. She reported that there will be a Special Joint General Plan Study Session between the City Council and Planning Commission on June 5, 2024, starting at 5 pm. Acting City Manager Gates announced that the City has hired a new Finance Director – Prapti Aryal. However, Associate Planner Kristina Tierney will be leaving the City, and her last day will be this Friday. Lastly, the next exhibit, called “Celebration of Trees,” is almost completely hung up in the City Council Chambers.

Mayor Gurney called for a recess at 7:54 pm; Council reconvened at 8:00 pm.

5. CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS
None.

Agenda Item #7.2:

Page 6 of 269 ends

Regular Meeting Minutes, May 15, 2024

6. PRESENTATIONS
Item 6.1: Proclamation Declaring the Week of May 19-25, 2024, as "Classified School Employee Week" in the City of Sonoma
Item 6.2: Proclamation Proclaiming May 2024 as Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month in the City of Sonoma
Item 6.3: Proclamation Proclaiming May 2024 as "Bike Month" and May 16, 2024, as "Bike to Work Day" in the City of Sonoma
Item 6.4: Proclamation Proclaiming the Week of May 19-25, 2024, as "National Public Works Appreciation Week" in the City of Sonoma
Item 6.5: Sonoma County Library Presentation by Library Director Erika Thibault

7. CONSENT CALENDAR – CITY COUNCIL
Motion by Council Member Lowe, seconded by Council Member Wellander, to approve the agenda with Item 7.3 being pulled to be brought back at a subsequent meeting, as well as Item 7.5 being pulled for separate discussion. Motion carried unanimously.

Item 7.3: Accept the Expenditure Report for the Months of March & April 2024. (Jennifer Gates, AICP, Community Development Director)
Action: Item was pulled and will be brought at a subsequent meeting.

Item 7.4: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City to Apply for Funding from the Urban and Community Forestry Grant Program of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, to Implement Tree Protection Strategies Identified in the 2024 Climate Action Strategies. (Jennifer Gates, AICP, Community Development Director) Action: Adopted as Resolution 31-2024.

Item 7.5: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager To Execute a Professional Services Agreement with ZFA Structural Engineers In An Amount Not To Exceed $150,000 Annually To Provide As-Needed Structural Engineering Services. (Mike Berger, Public Works Director)
Action: Pulled for separate discussion. Adopted as Resolution 30-2024.

Public Comment: Tom Conlon
Motion by Councilmember Wellander, seconded by Vice Mayor Farrar-Rivas, to Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with ZFA Structural Engineers In An Amount Not To Exceed $150,000 Annually To Provide As-Needed Structural Engineering Services. Motion carried unanimously.

Item 7.6: Adopt Two Ordinances Amending Sections of the Sonoma Municipal Code Pertaining to Appeal Time Periods and Finding this Action is Exempt from Further Environmental Review Under the General Rule in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) that CEQA only Applies to Projects that have the Potential for Causing a Significant Effect on the Environment. (Jennifer Gates, AICP, Community Development Director)
Action: Adopted as Ordinance 03-2024 and Ordinance 04-2024.

8. PUBLIC HEARING
Item 8.1: Consideration, Discussion, and Possible Action to Introduce an Ordinance of the City Council Amending Sonoma Municipal Code Chapter 12.06 (Sidewalk Seating Permits) and Section 19.50.060 (Outdoor Dining, Display, and Sales Standards), and Finding the Proposed Amendments are Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to Section 15061(B)(3) – General Rule – of the CEQA Guidelines. (Jennifer Gates, AICP, Community Development Director)
Action: Ordinance was introduced.

Public Comment: John Toulze and Tom Conlon
Motion by Council Member Lowe, seconded by Vice Mayor Farrar-Rivas, to Introduce an Ordinance of the City Council Amending Sonoma Municipal Code Chapter 12.06 (Sidewalk Seating Permits) and Section 19.50.060 (Outdoor Dining, Display, and Sales Standards) with amendments to sidewalk width and the requirement of pre-set tables, and Finding the Proposed Amendments are Exempt from the Agenda Item #7.2:

Page 7 of 269 ends

Regular Meeting Minutes, May 15, 2024
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to Section 15061(B)(3) – General Rule – of the CEQA Guidelines. Motion carried unanimously.

9. REGULAR CALENDAR – CITY COUNCIL
Item 9.1: Discussion, Consideration, and Possible Action to Adopt a Resolution Approving a First Amendment to the Employment Agreement with the City Manager and Authorizing the Mayor to Execute Same. (David J. Ruderman, City Attorney) Action: Adopted as Resolution 32-2024.

Motion by Council Member Ding, seconded by Council Member Lowe, to Adopt a Resolution Approving a First Amendment to the Employment Agreement with the City Manager and Authorizing Mayor to Execute Same. Motion carried unanimously.

10. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Gurney adjourned the meeting at 8:53 p.m.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing minutes were duly and regularly adopted at a regular meeting of the Sonoma City Council on the 17th of July 2024.
___________________________________
Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk
Agenda Item #7.2:

Page 8 of 269 ends

City Council:

John Gurney, Mayor
Patricia Farrar-Rivas, Vice Mayor
Jack Ding
Ron Wellander
Sandra Lowe

SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES

OF THE SONOMA CITY COUNCIL
Emergency Operations Center
175 First Street West
Thursday, May 30, 2024

9 AM Special Meeting
Special Meeting Minutes, May 30, 2024
6:00 P.M. – REGULAR MEETING

CONVENE, CALL TO ORDER, & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Gurney called the meeting to order at 9:00 p.m.

PRESENT: Mayor Gurney, Vice Mayor Farrar-Rivas, Council Member Wellander, Council Member Lowe, and Council Member Ding

2. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
Item 2.1: Review, Discussion, and Direction Regarding the Proposed FY 2024/25 Operating General Fund Budget, Capital Improvement Plan, and Other City-Wide Fund Budgets for the City of Sonoma (David Guhin, City Manager and Steve Montano, Special Adviser, BakerTilly)
Action: Council had discussions and provided direction to Staff.

Public Comment: Maria Barakat
Council Member Ding provided a Fair Political Practice Commission (FPPC) Conflict of Interest Disclosure, stating that he has no financial interest in Sonoma Overnight Support and, therefore has no conflict of interest.

3. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Gurney adjourned the meeting at 3:31 p.m.

1. CALL TO ORDER
Agenda Item #7.2:

Page 9 of 269 ends

City Council:

John Gurney, Mayor
Patricia Farrar-Rivas, Vice Mayor
Jack Ding
Ron Wellander
Sandra Lowe

REGULAR MEETING MINUTES

OF THE SONOMA CITY COUNCIL
City Council Chambers
177 First Street West
Wednesday, June 5, 2024

6:00 PM Regular Meeting
Regular Meeting Minutes, June 5, 2024
6:00 P.M. – REGULAR MEETING

CONVENE, CALL TO ORDER, & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Gurney called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.

ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Mayor Gurney, Vice Mayor Farrar-Rivas, Council Member Wellander, Council Member Lowe, and Council Member Ding

REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
There was no Closed Session held.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Motion by Council Member Lowe, seconded by Vice Mayor Farrar-Rivas, to approve the agenda with moving Item 6 after Item 2 and moving Item 9.2 after Item 6. Motion Carried unanimously.

1. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC
Matt Metzler, Josette Brose-Eichar, Esther, and Lev provided public comments.

2. MEETING DEDICATIONS
Councilmember Ding dedicated the meeting to Val Robichaud.

6. PRESENTATIONS
Item 6.1: A Proclamation Proclaiming June 19, 2024, as Juneteenth Day in the City of Sonoma Item 6.2: Presentation by the Cultural & Fine Arts Commission 2024 Student Creative Artist Noa Malone
Item 9.2: City Council Discussion and Consideration of a Ceasefire Resolution (David Guhin, City Manager)
Action: Item failed to pass due to a lack of motion.

Public Comment: Lexi Beckard, Josette Brose-Eichar, Ariel Mihic, Amara Collins, Claire Carlomagno, In Hui Lee, Jennifer Miller, Richie Cross, Katie Jewell, Esther Luvishis, Ava Bolger, Mike Smith, Laura Medina, Jordan Avner, Julian Mendez, Randy, Ranimar Lopez-Bazan, Anglea Marino, Seth Donnelly, Rori Perkins, Margaret DeMatteo, Revelle Mast, Maria Barakat, Tom Conlon for Sonoma Valley Democrats, , Mariana, Celeste Winters, Celine, Victoria Hernandez, Kasper Bolling, Lev, Matt Metzler, Michael Titone, Jeremy Marquardt, Mandy Bolling, Qian Yu, Victoria Mendez, Tanya Marsh, Katrina Model, Zach Roth, Issac Calderon, No Name Provided, No Name Provided, Moz Moore, and Petal Conlin.

Mayor Gurney called for a recess at 8:10 pm; Council reconvened at 8:20 pm.

3. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Vice Mayor Farrar-Rivas attended a Finance Committee meeting on May 22, 2024. On May 30, 2024, she attended the annual Budget Study Session as well as the second annual Pride Event.

Council Member Wellander attended the Sonoma Valley High School graduation ceremony on May 31, 2024.

Council Member Ding attended a Zero Waste Sonoma meeting on May 16, 2024.

Council Member Lowe attended the Memorial Day ceremony in front of City Hall on May 27, 2024, and the second annual Pride Event on May 30, 2024.

4. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
City Manager Guhin introduced the City’s new Finance Director – Prapti Aryal. He also provided a brief update on the efforts being made to make potential improvements in a section of the Donald Gap Project between the City and The Springs. Mr. Guhin informed everyone that the pond at the Agenda Item #7.2:

Page 10 of 269 ends

Regular Meeting Minutes, June 5, 2024
Plaza Park has stopped working, and a replacement pump will be installed over the next few weeks.

In the meantime, efforts are being made, including working with the Mosquito Vector Control, to manage and maintain the standing water.

5. CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS
None.

Mayor Gurney called for a recess at 8:31 pm; Council reconvened at 8:49 pm.

7. CONSENT CALENDAR – CITY COUNCIL
Motion by Vice Mayor Farrar-Rivas, seconded by Council Member Lowe, to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. Motion carried unanimously.

12.06 (Sidewalk Seating Permits) and Section 19.50.060 (Outdoor Dining, Display, and Sales Standards), and Finding the Proposed Amendments are Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to Section 15061(B)(3) – General Rule – of the CEQA Guidelines (Jennifer Gates, AICP, Community Development Director)
Action: Adopted as Ordinance 05-2024.

Item 7.3: Adopt a Resolution to: 1) Approve a Construction Contract Contingency in the Amount of $85,524.10 for the Chase Street Bridge Replacement Project, Federal Project No.

CML-5114(016), City Project No. CIP T-1 (the “Project”); 2) Authorize the City Manager to Execute Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement with Ghirardelli Associates, Inc., for Construction Management, Inspection and Materials Testing for the Project in the Amount of $52,048.73; and 3) Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Additional Task Order Amendment No. 10 to the Agreement with Consor Engineering for Design Support for the Project in the Amount of $24,750 (Michael Berger, Public Works Director)
Action: Adopted as Resolution 33-2024.

8. PUBLIC HEARING
Item 8.1: An Ordinance to Amend Sonoma Municipal Code Section 19.48.050 (Adjustments to Parking Requirements), 19.48.070 (Development Standards for Parking Facilities), and

19.48.090 (Landscaping of Parking Facilities), and Finding the Proposed Amendments are Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to Section 15061(B)(3) – General Rule – of the CEQA Guidelines (Jennifer Gates, AICP, Community Development Director)
Action: Ordinance were introduced.

Public Comment: Tom Conlon and Matt Metzler
Motion by Council Member Lowe, seconded by Council Member Ding, to introduce an Ordinance to Amend Sonoma Municipal Code Section 19.48.050 (Adjustments to Parking Requirements), 19.48.070 (Development Standards for Parking Facilities), and 19.48.090 (Landscaping of Parking Facilities), and Finding the Proposed Amendments are Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to Section 15061(B)(3) – General Rule – of the CEQA Guidelines. Motion carried unanimously.

Motion by Council Member Lowe, seconded by Vice Mayor Farr-Rivas, to continue the meeting past the nine o'clock hour. Motion carried unanimously.

9. REGULAR CALENDAR – CITY COUNCIL
Item 9.1: Presentation on the City of Sonoma General Plan and Housing Element 2023 Annual Progress Report (Jennifer Gates, AICP, Community Development Director) Action: Presentation was received.

Public Comment: Tom Conlon

10. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Gurney adjourned the meeting at 9:27 p.m.

Page 11 of 269 ends

City Council:

John Gurney, Mayor
Patricia Farrar-Rivas, Vice Mayor
Jack Ding
Ron Wellander
Sandra Lowe

SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES

OF THE SONOMA CITY COUNCIL
City Council Chambers
177 First Street West
Wednesday, June 5, 2024

5:00 P.M Special Meeting
Special Meeting Minutes, June 5, 2024
6:00 P.M. – REGULAR MEETING

CONVENE, CALL TO ORDER, & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Gurney called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.

PRESENT: Mayor Gurney, Vice Mayor Farrar-Rivas, Council Member Wellander, Council Member Lowe, and Council Member Ding

2. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
Item 2.1: City Council and Planning Commission Discussion on the General Plan Update (Jennifer Gates, AICP, Community Development Director)
Action: Council and Planning Commission jointly had discussions and provided direction to Staff.

Public Comment: Kaitlyn Cornwall, Fred Allebach, Sedra Shapiro-Nathan, Maria Barakat, and Tanya Marsh.

3. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Gurney adjourned the meeting at 6:00 p.m.

1. CALL TO ORDER
Agenda Item #7.2:

Page 12 of 269 ends

City Council:

John Gurney, Mayor
Patricia Farrar-Rivas, Vice Mayor
Jack Ding
Ron Wellander
Sandra Lowe

REGULAR MEETING MINUTES

OF THE SONOMA CITY COUNCIL
City Council Chambers
177 First Street West
Wednesday, June 19, 2024

6:00 PM Regular Meeting
Regular Meeting Minutes, June 19, 2024
6:00 P.M. – REGULAR MEETING

CONVENE, CALL TO ORDER, & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Gurney called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.

Mayor Gurney provided the public with an overview of the updated public comment process for this evening’s meeting.

ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Mayor Gurney, Vice Mayor Farrar-Rivas, Council Member Wellander, Council Member Lowe, and Council Member Ding

REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
There was no Closed Session held.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Motion by Council Member Lowe, seconded by Vice Mayor Farrar-Rivas, to approve the agenda as presented. Motion Carried unanimously.

1. PRESENTATIONS
Item 1.1: Recognition of Thomas Haeuser for his Service on the Sonoma County Library Commission

2. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC
Jim Bohar, Maria Barakat, Marty Bennett, Tanya Marsh, Ariel Mihic, Lexie Beckard, Celene, Julian, Individual Who Provided No Name, and Beth Hadley provided public comments.

3. MEETING DEDICATIONS
Council Member Lowe dedicated the meeting to Willie Mays.

4. COUNCILMEMBERS’ REPORTS AND COMMENTS
Council Member Ding attended a Sonoma Valley Groundwater Sustainability Agency meeting on June 17, 2024.

Vice Mayor Farrar-Rivas attended a Sonoma Clean Power Board meeting on June 6, 2024. On June 13, 2024, on behalf of the mayor, she attended a Mayors and Councilmembers Association meeting. Additionally, on June 19, 2024, Vice Mayor Farrar-Rivas attended a Sonoma’s Commission for Women and Girls meeting.

Council Member Wellander attended this week’s Tuesday Night Market on June 18, 2024.

Mayor Gurney attended a Sonoma Tourism Improvement District meeting on June 13, 2024.

5. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
City Manager Guhin provided an update on the Elm tree on the Plaza. Mr. Guhin also updated the Council and the public on the status of the ambulance being donated and sent to Ukraine. Lastly, City Manager Guhin reminded everyone that Transcendence Theater will be starting tomorrow, June 20, 2024, and will run through the end of September 2024.

6. CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS
City Attorney Ruderman provided an update regarding the Cal-Cities Business Roundtable Measure.

7. CONSENT CALENDAR – CITY COUNCIL
Agenda Item #7.2:

Page 13 of 269 ends

Regular Meeting Minutes, June 19, 2024
Motion by Council Member Lowe, seconded by Vice Mayor Farrar-Rivas, to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. Motion carried unanimously.

Item 7.1: Waive further reading and Authorize Introduction and/or Adoption of Ordinances by Title Only. (Standard procedural action - no backup information provided) Item 7.2: Adopt an Ordinance to Amend Sonoma Municipal Code Section 19.48.050 (Adjustments to Parking Requirements), 19.48.070 (Development Standards for Parking Facilities), and 19.48.090 (Landscaping of Parking Facilities), and Finding the Proposed Amendments are Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to Section 15061(B)(3) – General Rule – of the CEQA Guidelines (Jennifer Gates, AICP, Community Development Director)
Action: Adopted as Ordinance 06-2024.

Item 7.3: Accept the Expenditure Reports for the Months of March, April & May 2024 (Prapti Aryal, Finance Director)
Action: The expenditure reports for March, April, and May 2024 were accepted.

Item 7.4: Adopt a Resolution Approving a FY23/24 Budget Amendment to Fund Additional Obligations to the Department of Health Care Services’ IGT Program (Prapti Aryal, Finance Director)
Action: Adopted as Resolution 34-2024.

Item 7.5: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Contract Amendment with M-Group in an Amount not to Exceed $125,000 to continue planning services in the City of Sonoma (Jennifer Gates, AICP, Community Development Director)
Action: Adopted as Resolution 35-2024.

Item 7.6: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with 4LEAF, Inc. in an Amount Not to Exceed $275,000 for Continued Services for Building Official, Building Plan Check and Inspection Services (Jennifer Gates, AICP, Community Development Director) Action: Adopted as Resolution 36-2024.

Item 7.7: Adopt a Resolution Approving 1) An Increase in the Total Project Budget for Depot Park Museum HVAC Project No. CIP BF-8 from $217,000 to $219,525; 2) A Supplemental Appropriation of $2,525 from the Long-Term Building Maintenance Fund 610 Fund Balance to Depot Park Museum HVAC Project No. CIP BF-8 Resulting in a Construction Contract Contingency of $2,525 for Depot Park Museum HVAC Project No. CIP BF-8 (Mike Berger, Public Works Director)
Action: Adopted as Resolution 37-2024.

Item 7.8: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with EDesignC in an Amount Not to Exceed $150,000 Annually to Provide As-Needed Electrical Engineering Services (Mike Berger, Public Works Director) Action: Adopted as Resolution 38-2027.

Item 7.9: Adopt a Resolution Approving the Fiscal Year 2024-25 Road Pavement Preservation and Rehabilitation Projects as the Projects for Fiscal Year 2024-25 Funded by Senate Bill 1: The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 and Authorize the Public Works Department to Submit these Projects to the California Transportation Commission (Mike Berger, Public Works Director)
Action: Adopted as Resolution 39-2024.

Item 7.10: Adopt a Resolution to Approve: 1) An Increase in the Total Project Budget for Well No. 1 Vault Cover and Air Exchange System Improvement Project No. CIP W-13 from $159,292 to $184,076.94; 2) A Supplemental Appropriation of $24,784.94 from the Water Utility Fund 510 Fund Balance to Well No. 1 Vault Cover and Air Exchange System Improvement Project No. CIP W-13; and 3) A Construction Contract Contingency of $24,784.94 for Well No. 1 Vault Cover and Air Exchange System Improvement Project No. CIP W-13 (Mike Berger, Public Works Director) Action: Adopted as Resolution 40-2024.

8. PUBLIC HEARING
Item 8.1: Public Hearing and a Resolution Authorizing Adjustments to Solid Waste Utility Rates and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement for Solid Waste Collection Services Agreement with Sonoma Garbage Collectors (Mike Berger, Public Works Director and David Guhin, City Manager)
Action: Public hearing was held. Adopted as Resolution 41-2024.

Open Public Hearing: 7:16 p.m.

Public Comment: Tony Mall and Mary Catherine
Agenda Item #7.2:

Page 14 of 269 ends

Regular Meeting Minutes, June 19, 2024
Close Public Hearing: 7:21 p.m.

Motion by Council Member Ding, seconded by Council Member Lowe, to adopt a Resolution Authorizing Adjustment to Solid Waste Utility Rates and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement for Solid Waste Collection Services Agreement with Sonoma Garbage Collectors with the amendment to update the number of community events from 55 to 30 throughout Section 5.11(C).

Motion carried unanimously.

9. REGULAR CALENDAR – CITY COUNCIL
Item 9.1: Appointment to the Design Review & Historic Preservation Commission (Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk)
Action: Daniel Sohn was appointed as an At-Large Member to the Design Review & Historic Preservation Commission.

Public Comment: David Eichar
Motion by Council Member Lowe, seconded by Vice Mayor Farrar-Rivas, to appoint Daniel Sohn as an At-Large Member of the Design Review & Historic Preservation Commission. Motion carried unanimously.

By unanimous consensus, the Council directed staff to update the policy to change the eligibility requirements of regional committees so that anyone, regardless of their voting status, can apply for open positions.

Item 9.2: Discussion, Consideration and Possible Action to Approve the Fiscal Year 2024-25 City of Sonoma Operating and Capital Improvement Budget with the Following Resolutions: (Prapti Aryal, Finance Director and David Guhin, City Manager) Action: Adopted as Resolution 42-2024, Resolution 43-2024, Resolution 44-2024, Resolution 45-2024, and Resolution 46-2024.

Vice Mayor Farrar-Rivas disclosed that she sits on Sonoma Ecology Center’s Board.

Council Member Ding disclosed that he sits on the Sonoma Overnight Support and Sonoma Valley Communications Boards.

Mayor Gurney disclosed that he sits on Hanna Boys Center’s Board.

Council Member Lowe left the meeting at 8:31 p.m.

Motion by Council Member Ding, seconded by Vice Mayor Farrar-Rivas, to Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of The City of Sonoma and the Successor Agency of the Former Sonoma Community Development Agency Adopting the Fiscal Year 2024-25 City of Sonoma Operating Budget; Approving Community Fund Programming; and Authorizing the City Manager, or their Designee, to Execute Task Orders for the City Engineering Services With CIP Consultants. Motion carried 4-0-1 with Council Member Ding, Council Member Wellander, Vice Mayor Farrar-Rivas, and Mayor Gurney voting Yes, and Council Member Lowe absent.

Motion by Vice Mayor Farrar-Rivas, seconded by Council Member Ding, to Adopt a Resolution Adopting the 2024-29 Five-Year Capital Improvement Program; Authorizing Capital Project Funds Appropriated and Unspent in Fiscal Year 2023-24 to be Rolled Into the Fiscal Year 2024-25 Budget.

Motion carried 4-0-1, with Council Member Ding, Council Member Wellander, Vice Mayor FarrarRivas, and Mayor Gurney voting Yes, and Council Member Lowe absent.

Motion by Mayor Gurney, seconded by Vice Mayor Farrar-Rivas, to Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute or Amend Contracts with Various Service Providers Within Areas Such as Economic Development, Recreation & Community Services, Public Works & Transportation, Emergency Preparedness & Homeless Support, General Operations/Services for the Fiscal Year 2024-25. Motion carried 4-0-1, with Council Member Ding, Council Member Wellander, Vice Mayor Farrar-Rivas, and Mayor Gurney voting Yes, and Council Member Lowe absent.

Motion by Vice Mayor Farrar-Rivas, seconded by Council Member Ding, to Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Approve the Carryforward Operational Funds for One Time Projects Appropriated and Unspent in Fiscal Year 2023-24 to be Rolled into the Fiscal Year 2024-25 Budget.

Motion carried 4-0-1, with Council Member Ding, Council Member Wellander, Vice Mayor FarrarRivas, and Mayor Gurney voting Yes, and Council Member Lowe absent.

Motion by Council Member Wellander, seconded by Council Member Ding, to Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Fund Recreation and Community Service Discretionary Funding Program for the Fiscal Year 2024-25 Budget. Motion carried 4-0-1, with Council Member Ding, Council Member Wellander, Vice Mayor Farrar-Rivas, and Mayor Gurney voting Yes, and Council Member Lowe absent.

10. SECOND COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC
David Eichar provided public comment.

Agenda Item #7.2:

Page 15 of 269 ends

Regular Meeting Minutes, June 19, 2024

10. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Gurney adjourned the meeting at 8:46 p.m.

Page 16 of 269 ends

City of Sonoma
Agenda Item Summary
Meeting: City Council - 17 Jul 2024
Department
Administration
Staff Contact
Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk
Agenda Item Title
Adopt Resolutions 1) Calling for the Holding of a General Municipal Election to be Held on Tuesday, November 5, 2024, for the Election of Certain Officers as Required by the Provisions of the Laws of the State of California Relating to General Law Cities; and 2) Requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Sonoma to Consolidate a General Municipal Election to be Held on Tuesday, November 5, 2024 with the Statewide General Election to be Held on Tuesday, November 5, 2024
Summary
The City’s General Municipal elections are held in November of even-numbered years, concurrent with the statewide elections. Two members of the City Council will be elected in the November 5, 2024, election. As provided in the California Elections Code, the attached resolutions are presented for adoption in preparation of the election. One resolution is presented to call the election and one is to request the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors to consolidate the election with the Statewide General Election. Once adopted, certified copies of the resolutions will be forwarded to the County Board of Supervisors and the Sonoma County Registrar of Voters’ Office.

Pursuant to Elections Code 136307, on June 15, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution #38-2022 pertaining to candidate's statements. The resolution sets the word count at 200 words and affirms that all associated costs are the responsibility of the candidate. Since it has not been repealed, it will govern the 2024 General Municipal Election.

The appropriate election notices to date and upcoming have or will be published and the nomination period for City Council candidates began on Monday July 15, 2024, and will run through Friday August 9, 2024. In the event that one of the incumbents has not filed by August 9th, the nomination period will be extended to August 14th.

Recommended Council Action
Adopt the resolutions.

Alternative Actions
N/A
Financial Impact
The City has a multi-year contract with the County to conduct our municipal elections. Funds have been included in the 2024/2025 budget for election expenses based on an estimate provided by the County in the amount of $65,000 for two council seats and one measure.

Environmental Review Status
Agenda Item #7.3:

Page 17 of 269 ends

Environmental Impact Report
Negative Declaration
Exempt
Not Applicable
Approved/Certified
No Action Required
Action Requested
Attachments
2024 Resolution Calling General Municipal Election
2024 Resolution Requesting Consolidation
Agenda Item #7.3:

Page 18 of 269 ends

City of Sonoma
RESOLUTION # _____ - 2024

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SONOMA,

CALIFORNIA, CALLING FOR THE HOLDING OF A MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2024, FOR THE ELECTION OF

CERTAIN OFFICERS AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAWS OF

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RELATING TO GENERAL LAW CITIES
WHEREAS, under the provisions of the laws relating to general law cities in the State of California, a General Municipal Election shall be held on November 5, 2024, for the election of Municipal Officers.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SONOMA, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. That pursuant to the requirements of the laws of the State of California relating to General Law Cities, there is called and ordered to be held in the City of Sonoma, California, on Tuesday, November 5, 2024, a General Municipal Election for the purpose of electing two Members of the City Council for the full term of four years.

SECTION 2. That the ballots to be used at the election shall be in form and content as required by law.

SECTION 3. That the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to coordinate with the County of Sonoma Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk to procure and furnish any and all official ballots, notices, printed matter and all supplies, equipment and paraphernalia that may be necessary in order to properly and lawfully conduct the election.

SECTION 4. That the polls (vote centers) for the election shall be open at seven o’clock a.m. of the day of the election and shall remain open continuously from that time until eight o’clock p.m. of the same day when the polls (vote centers) shall be closed, pursuant to Election Code § 10242, except as provided in §§ 14212, 14401 of the Elections Code of the State of California.

SECTION 5. That in all particulars not recited in this resolution, the election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections.

SECTION 6. That notice of the time and place of holding the election is given and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further or additional notice of the election, in time, form and manner as required by law.

SECTION 7. That in the event two or more candidates receive an equal and highest number of votes for an office as certified by the County of Sonoma RegistrarRecorder/County Clerk, the City Council shall set a date and time and place and summon the candidates who have received the tie votes to appear and will determine the resolution of the tie by lot, pursuant to Elections Code section 15651.

SECTION 8. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions.

Agenda Item #7.3:

Page 19 of 269 ends

SECTION 9. The City Council authorizes the City Clerk to administer said election and all reasonable and actual election expenses shall be paid by the City upon presentation of a properly submitted bill.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Council Meeting on July 17, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES
ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

________________________________
John Gurney, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk
Agenda Item #7.3:

Page 20 of 269 ends

City of Sonoma
RESOLUTION # _____ - 2024

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SONOMA, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SONOMA TO CONSOLIDATE A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 5, 2024, WITH THE STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON THE DATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 10403 OF THE ELECTION CODE WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Sonoma called a General Municipal Election to be held on November 5, 2024, for the purpose of the election of two Members of the City Council; and WHEREAS, it is desirable that the General municipal election be consolidated with the Statewide General election to be held on the same date and that within the city the precincts, polling places (voting centers) and election officers of the two elections be the same, and that the county election department of the County of Sonoma canvass the returns of the General Municipal Election and that the election be held in all respects as if there were only one election.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SONOMA DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. That pursuant to the requirements of section 10403 of the Elections Code, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Sonoma is hereby requested to consent and agree to the consolidation of a General Municipal Election with the Statewide General election on Tuesday, November 5, 2024, for the purpose of the election of Two Members of the City Council.

SECTION 2. That the county election department is authorized to canvass the returns of the General Municipal Election. The election shall be held in all respects as if there were only one election, and only one form of ballot shall be used. The election will be held and conducted in accordance with the provisions of law regulating the statewide or special election.

SECTION 3. That the Board of Supervisors is requested to issue instructions to the county election department to take any and all steps necessary for the holding of the consolidated election.

SECTION 4. That the City of Sonoma recognizes that additional costs will be incurred by the County by reason of this consolidation and agrees to reimburse the County for any costs actually incurred upon presentation of a properly submitted bill to the City pursuant to Election Code section 10002.

SECTION 5. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the Board of Supervisors and the county election department of the County of Sonoma.

SECTION 6. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Council Meeting on July 17, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES
ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
____________________________________
John Gurney, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________________
Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk
Agenda Item #7.3:

Page 21 of 269 ends

City of Sonoma
Agenda Item Summary
Meeting: City Council - 17 Jul 2024
Department
Public Works
Staff Contact
Michael Berger, Public Works Director
Agenda Item Title
Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with Olaunu, LLC to provide As-Needed Engineering and Project Management Consulting Assistance in an Amount Not-To-Exceed $25,000.00 Summary
The City has been contracting with Olaunu, LLC, since November 2023. Since then, the City has executed two contracts, both for an amount not to exceed $25,000.00. Olaunu, LLC has been invaluable to the Public Works Department, in the absence of a Public Works Administrative and Project Manager. Olaunu, LLC was able to quickly provide a professional with extensive public works engineering and project management experience, which has been essential to the continued progress of the Advanced Metering Infrastructure Project, Plaza Park 68 Proposition 68 Grant Project, as well as the close out of the Chase Street Bridge Project.

Additionally, Olaunu, LLC will provide services to update the City’s safety program.

While the recruitment to fill the vacant position has been successful, Olaunu, LLC has been consistently managing multiple projects, and handing them off and/or project closeout is still in progress. The contract previously executed on April 3, 2024, has been fully expended, and expired on June 30, 2024. Staff is proposing to execute a third agreement with Olaunu, LLC, to provide additional engineering and project management services, to conclude the work started under the previous contract. City Council approval is required because the recommended action would result in total compensation that would exceed the City Manager's purchasing authority.

Included as an attachment is a copy of the proposed agreement. It is the City's standard Professional Services Agreement template which has been recently updated and approved by the City Attorney. There may be some slight changes in the insurance coverage, however, if there are they will not affect the terms of the agreement.

Recommended Council Action
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the Professional Services Agreement.

Alternative Actions
Council discretion.

Financial Impact
This agreement will be funded out of various accounts, to include the following:

Agenda Item #7.4:

Page 22 of 269 ends

 Water Engineering (account: 510-62001-314-50314) : $15,000.00  Parks Consultant Services (account: 100-43023-407-60407) : $5,000.00  Admin Consulting (account: 100-43020-313-50313) : $5,000.00 Total: $25,000.00
Environmental Review Status
Environmental Impact Report
Negative Declaration
Exempt
Not Applicable
Approved/Certified
No Action Required
Action Requested
Attachments
Resolution Olaunu LLC
PSA - Olaunu LLC
Agenda Item #7.4:

Page 23 of 269 ends

City of Sonoma
RESOLUTION # ___- 2024

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SONOMA AUTHORIZING THE

CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH

OLAUNU, LLC TO PROVIDE AS NEEDED ENGINEERING AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT CONSULTING ASSISTANCE IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $25,000 WHEREAS, on November 30, 2023, and on April 3, 2024, contracts with Olaunu, LLC were authorized for an amount not to exceed $25,000 to provide public works engineering and project management support to help fill the gap created when the Public Works Administrative and Project Manager position became vacant; and
WHEREAS, Olaunu, LLC has ensured continued projects on the Plaza Park Proposition 68 grant project, Advanced Metering Infrastructure Project, Chase Street Bridge Project close out, and other key activities on a part time basis; and
WHEREAS, the recruitment process has been successful for the Public Works Administrative and Project Manager position, however Olaunu, LLC has been consistently managing multiple projects; and
WHEREAS, handing off projects and closing out others will take time; and WHEREAS, the contract issued on April 3, 2024, term expired on June 30, and all funding has been expended; and
WHEREAS, staff recommend executing a third contract with Olaunu, LLC to conclude the work started under the previous contract.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Sonoma that the City Manager is authorized to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Olaunu, LLC in an amount not to exceed $25,000 annually to provide as needed engineering and project management consulting assistance.

RESOLVED, PASSED, AND ADOPTED this 17th day of July 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
________________________________
John Gurney, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk
Agenda Item #7.4:

Page 24 of 269 ends

Professional Services Agreement — Design Professionals
(City of Sonoma / Olaunu, LLC
336577.2 Page 1 of 25
Approved for use 12/28/2023

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

FOR DESIGN PROFESSIONALS
(City of Sonoma / Olaunu, LLC)

1. IDENTIFICATION
This PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is entered into by and between the City of Sonoma, a California municipal corporation (“City”), and Olaunu, LLC a California Limited Liability Corporation (“Consultant”) (collectively, “parties”).

2. RECITALS

2.1 City has determined that it requires the following professional services from a consultant: as needed engineering and project management assistance.

2.2 Consultant represents that it is fully qualified to perform such professional services by virtue of its experience and the training, education and expertise of its principals and employees. Consultant further represents that it is willing to accept responsibility for performing such services in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement.

2.3 City has relied upon the professional ability and training of the Consultant as a material inducement to enter into this Agreement. Consultant shall perform in accordance with generally accepted professional practices and standards as well as the requirements of applicable federal, state and local laws, it being understood that acceptance of Consultant’s work by City shall not operate as a waiver or release. Consultant represents and warrants to City that (a) it has all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatever nature which are legally required for Consultant to practice its profession, and (b) it shall, at its sole cost, keep in effect or obtain at all times during the term of this Agreement any licenses, permits, insurance and approvals which are legally required for Consultant to practice its profession. Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City from and against any and all claims or expenses caused or occasioned directly or indirectly by Consultant’s failure to so perform.

Agenda Item #7.4:

Page 25 of 269 ends

Professional Services Agreement — Design Professionals
(City of Sonoma / Olaunu, LLC
336577.2 Page 2 of 25
Approved for use 12/28/2023
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions herein contained, City and Consultant agree as follows:

3. DEFINITIONS

3.1 “Agreement Administrator”: The Agreement Administrator for this project is Mike Berger, Director of Public Works. The Agreement Administrator shall be the principal point of contact at the City for this project. All services under this Agreement shall be performed at the request of the Agreement Administrator. The Agreement Administrator will establish the timetable for completion of services and any interim milestones. City reserves the right to change this designation upon written notice to Consultant.

3.2 “Approved Fee Schedule” means such compensation rates are set forth in the Consultant’s fee schedule to City attached hereto as “Exhibit B” and fully incorporated herein by this reference. This fee schedule shall remain in effect for the duration of this Agreement unless modified in writing by mutual agreement of the parties.

3.3 “Commencement Date” means July 1, 2024.

3.4 “Design Professional”: A Design Professional is any individual satisfying one or more of the following: (1) licensed as an architect pursuant to Business and Professions Code 5500 et seq., (2) licensed as a landscape architect pursuant to Business and Professions Code 5615 et seq., (3) licensed as a professional land surveyor pursuant to Business and Professions Code 8700 et seq., or (4) registered as a professional engineer pursuant to Business and Professions Code 6700 et seq.

3.5 “Design Professional Project Administrator” is Tom Bonigut and will be the principal point of contact for the Consultant.

3.6 “Maximum Amount” means the highest total compensation and costs payable to Consultant by City under this Agreement. The Maximum Amount under this Agreement is Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000).

3.7 “Scope of Services” means such professional services as are set forth in Consultant’s scope of work dated July 1, 2024 proposal to City attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference.

Agenda Item #7.4:

Page 26 of 269 ends

Professional Services Agreement — Design Professionals
(City of Sonoma / Olaunu, LLC
336577.2 Page 3 of 25
Approved for use 12/28/2023

3.8 “Termination Date” means June 30, 2025.

4. TERM
The term of this Agreement shall commence at 12:00 a.m. on the Commencement Date and shall expire at 11:59 p.m. on the Termination Date unless extended in writing by mutual agreement of the parties or terminated earlier in accordance with section 16 (“Termination”) below. Consultant may request extensions of time to perform the services required hereunder. Such extensions shall be effective if authorized in advance by City in writing and incorporated in written amendments to this Agreement.

5. CONSULTANT’S DUTIES

5.1 Services. Consultant shall perform the services identified in the Scope of Services. City shall have the right to request, in writing, changes in the Scope of Services. Any such changes mutually agreed upon by the parties, and any corresponding increase or decrease in compensation, shall be incorporated by written amendment to this Agreement. In performing services under this Agreement, Consultant shall coordinate all contact with the City through its Agreement Administrator. All changes and/or extra work shall be performed and paid for in accordance with the following:

5.1.1 Only the City Public Works Director or City Council may authorize extra and/or changed work. Consultant expressly recognizes that other City personnel are without authorization to either order extra and/or changed work or waive contract requirements. Failure of Consultant to secure the Council’s or City Public Works Director’s authorization for such extra and/or changed work shall constitute a waiver of any and all right to adjustment in the Maximum Amount due to such unauthorized work and Consultant thereafter shall be entitled to no compensation whatsoever for performance of such work.

5.1.2 If the Consultant is of the opinion that any work s/he has been directed to perform is beyond the scope of this Agreement and constitutes extra work, s/he shall promptly notify the Agreement Administrator of this opinion. The City shall make a determination as to whether or not such work is, in fact, beyond the scope of this Agreement and constitutes extra work. In the event that the City determines that such work does constitute extra work, it shall Agenda Item #7.4:

Page 27 of 269 ends

Professional Services Agreement — Design Professionals
(City of Sonoma / Olaunu, LLC
336577.2 Page 4 of 25
Approved for use 12/28/2023
provide extra compensation to the Consultant on a fair and equitable basis. A Supplemental Agreement providing for such compensation for extra work shall be negotiated between the City and the Consultant. Such Supplemental Agreement shall be executed by the Consultant and be approved by the City in accordance with its purchasing policy.

5.1.3 In the event City determines that such work does not constitute extra work, Consultant shall not be paid extra compensation above that provided herein and if such determination is made by City staff, this determination may be appealed to the City Council as long as a written appeal is submitted to the City Manager within five (5) days after the staff’s determination is received by the Consultant. Any written appeal shall include a description of each and every ground upon which Consultant challenges the staff’s determination. The City Council’s decision shall be final.

5.2 Consultant Standards. Consultant shall perform all work to the highest standards of Consultant’s profession and in a manner reasonably satisfactory to City. Consultant shall keep itself fully informed of and in compliance with all local, state, and federal laws, rules, and regulations in any manner affecting the performance of this Agreement, including all Cal/OSHA requirements, the conflict of interest provisions of Government Code § 1090 and the Political Reform Act (Government Code § 81000 et seq.).

5.3 Coordination with City. In performing services under this Agreement, Consultant shall coordinate all contact with City through its Agreement Administrator.

5.4 Budgetary Notification. In no event shall the total compensation and costs payable to Consultant under this Agreement exceed the Maximum Amount unless specifically approved in advance and in writing by City.

Consultant shall notify the Agreement Administrator, in writing, when fees and expenses incurred under this Agreement have reached eighty percent (80%) of the Maximum Amount. Consultant shall concurrently inform the Agreement Administrator, in writing, of Consultant’s estimate of total expenditures required to complete its current assignments before proceeding, when the remaining work on such assignments would exceed the Maximum Amount.

Agenda Item #7.4:

Page 28 of 269 ends

Professional Services Agreement — Design Professionals
(City of Sonoma / Olaunu, LLC
336577.2 Page 5 of 25
Approved for use 12/28/2023

5.5 Business License. Consultant shall obtain and maintain in force a City business license for the duration of this Agreement.

5.6 No Known Relationships. Consultant represents that it has no known relationships with third parties, City Council members, or employees of City which would (i) present a conflict of interest with the rendering of services under this Agreement under Government Code Section 1090, the Political Reform Act (Government Code Section 81000 et seq.), or other applicable law, (ii) prevent Consultant from performing the terms of this Agreement, or (iii) present a significant opportunity for the disclosure of confidential information.

5.7 Avoid Conflicts. During the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall not perform any work for another person or entity for whom Consultant was not working at the Commencement Date if both (i) such work would require Consultant to abstain from a decision under this Agreement pursuant to a conflict of interest statute and (ii) City has not consented in writing to Consultant’s performance of such work.

5.8 Campaign Contribution Disclosure. This Agreement is subject to Government Code Section 84308, as amended by SB 1439. That statute requires Consultant to disclose any campaign contribution by the Consultant or the Consultant’s agent to City Councilmembers or other City officials of more than two-hundred and fifty dollars ($250) in the aggregate within the preceding twelve (12) months. Consultant shall provide a signed copy of the attached Campaign Contribution Disclosure Form, Exhibit C, with Consultant’s execution of this Agreement.

5.9 City Retains Responsibility for Contracting. Consultant’s duties and services under this Agreement shall not include preparing or assisting the City with any portion of the City’s preparation of a request for proposals, request for qualifications, or any other solicitation regarding a subsequent or additional contract with the City. The City entering this Agreement shall at all times retain responsibility for public contracting, including with respect to any subsequent phase of this project. Consultant’s participation in the planning, discussions, or drawing of project plans or specifications shall be limited to conceptual, preliminary, or initial plans or specifications. Consultant shall cooperate with the City to ensure that all bidders for a subsequent contract on any subsequent phase of this project have access to the same information, including all conceptual, Agenda Item #7.4:

Page 29 of 269 ends

Professional Services Agreement — Design Professionals
(City of Sonoma / Olaunu, LLC
336577.2 Page 6 of 25
Approved for use 12/28/2023
preliminary, or initial plans or specifications prepared by contractor pursuant to this Agreement.

5.10 Appropriate Personnel. Consultant represents that it has, or will secure at its own expense, all personnel required to perform the services identified in the Scope of Services. All such services shall be performed by Consultant or under its supervision, and all personnel engaged in the work shall be qualified to perform such services. Design Professional Project Administrator shall be Consultant’s project administrator and shall have direct responsibility for management of Consultant’s performance under this Agreement. No change shall be made in Consultant’s project administrator without City’s prior written consent.

5.11 Substitution of Personnel. Any persons named in the proposal or Scope of Services constitutes a promise to the City that those persons will perform and coordinate their respective services under this Agreement.

Should one or more of such personnel become unavailable, Consultant may substitute other personnel of at least equal competence upon written approval of City. If City and Consultant cannot agree as to the substitution of key personnel, City may terminate this Agreement for cause.

5.12 Permits and Approvals. Consultant shall obtain, at its sole cost and expense, all permits and regulatory approvals necessary for Consultant’s performance of this Agreement. This includes, but shall not be limited to, professional licenses, encroachment permits and building and safety permits and inspections.

5.13 Notification of Organizational Changes. Consultant shall notify the Agreement Administrator, in writing, of any change in name, ownership or control of Consultant’s firm or of any subcontractor. Change of ownership or control of Consultant’s firm may require an amendment to this Agreement.

5.14 Records. Consultant shall maintain any and all ledgers, books of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, and other records or documents evidencing or relating to charges for services or expenditures and disbursements charged to City under this Agreement for a minimum of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date of final payment to Consultant under this Agreement. All such documents Agenda Item #7.4:

Page 30 of 269 ends

Professional Services Agreement — Design Professionals
(City of Sonoma / Olaunu, LLC
336577.2 Page 7 of 25
Approved for use 12/28/2023
shall be made available for inspection, audit, and/or copying at any time during regular business hours, upon oral or written request of City. In addition, pursuant to Government Code Section 8546.7, if the amount of public funds expended under this Agreement exceeds ten thousand dollars, all such documents and this Agreement shall be subject to the examination and audit of the State Auditor, at the request of City or as part of any audit of City, for a period of three (3) years after final payment under this Agreement.

6. SUBCONTRACTING

6.1 General Prohibition. This Agreement covers professional services of a specific and unique nature. Except as otherwise provided herein, Consultant shall not assign or transfer its interest in this Agreement or subcontract any services to be performed without amending this Agreement.

6.2 Consultant Responsible. Consultant shall be responsible to City for all services to be performed under this Agreement.

6.3 Identification in Fee Schedule. All subcontractors shall be specifically listed and their billing rates identified in the Approved Fee Schedule, Exhibit B. City shall pay Consultant for work performed by its subcontractors (including labor) only at Consultant’s actual cost plus an approved mark up as set forth in the Approved Fee Schedule, Exhibit B.

Consultant shall be liable and accountable for all payments, compensation, and federal and state taxes to all subcontractors performing services under this Agreement. City shall not be liable for any payment, compensation, or federal and state taxes for any subcontractors.

Any changes must be approved by the Agreement Administrator in writing as an amendment to this Agreement.

7. COMPENSATION

7.1 General. City agrees to compensate Consultant for the services provided under this Agreement, and Consultant agrees to accept payment in accordance with the Fee Schedule in full satisfaction for such services.

Compensation shall not exceed the Maximum Amount. Consultant shall not be reimbursed for any expenses unless provided for in this Agreement or authorized in writing by City in advance.

Agenda Item #7.4:

Page 31 of 269 ends

Professional Services Agreement — Design Professionals
(City of Sonoma / Olaunu, LLC
336577.2 Page 8 of 25
Approved for use 12/28/2023

7.2 Invoices. Consultant shall submit to City an invoice, on a monthly basis or as otherwise agreed to by the Agreement Administrator, for services performed pursuant to this Agreement. Each invoice shall identify the Maximum Amount, the services rendered during the billing period, the amount due for the invoice, and the total amount previously invoiced. All labor charges shall be itemized by employee name and classification or position with the firm, the corresponding hourly rate, the hours worked, a description of each labor charge, and the total amount due for labor charges.

7.3 Taxes. City shall not withhold applicable taxes or other payroll deductions from payments made to Consultant except as otherwise required by law. Consultant shall be solely responsible for calculating, withholding, and paying all taxes.

7.4 Disputes. The parties agree to meet and confer at mutually agreeable times to resolve any disputed amounts contained in an invoice submitted by Consultant.

7.5 Additional Work. Consultant shall not be reimbursed for any expenses incurred for work performed outside the Scope of Services unless prior written approval is given by the City through a fully executed written amendment. Consultant shall not undertake any such work without prior written approval of the City.

7.6 City Satisfaction as Precondition to Payment. Notwithstanding any other terms of this Agreement, no payments shall be made to Consultant until City is satisfied that the services are satisfactory.

7.7 Right to Withhold Payments. If Consultant fails to provide a deposit or promptly satisfy an indemnity obligation described in section 11, City shall have the right to withhold payments under this Agreement to offset that amount.

8. PREVAILING WAGE

8.1 Prevailing Wage Law Applies. Consultant is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Section 1720, et seq., and 1770, et seq., as well as California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 16000, et seq., (“Prevailing Wage Laws”), which require the payment of prevailing wage rates and the performance of other requirements on certain “public works” and Agenda Item #7.4:

Page 32 of 269 ends

Professional Services Agreement — Design Professionals
(City of Sonoma / Olaunu, LLC
336577.2 Page 9 of 25
Approved for use 12/28/2023
“maintenance” projects including the design and preconstruction phases of a covered public works project. This Agreement is subject to prevailing wage law, for all work performed under the Agreement for which the payment of prevailing wages is required under the California Labor Code.

8.2 Indemnification; Prevailing Wage Law. Consultant shall defend, indemnify, and hold the City, its elected officials, officers, employees, and agents free and harmless from any claim or liability arising out of any failure or alleged failure of Consultant to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws.

9. OWNERSHIP OF WRITTEN PRODUCTS
All reports, documents or other written material, and all electronic files, including computer-aided design files, developed by Consultant in the performance of this Agreement (such written material and electronic files are collectively known as “written products”) shall be and remain the property of City without restriction or limitation upon its use or dissemination by City except as provided by law. Consultant may take and retain copies of such written products as desired, but no such written products shall be the subject of a copyright application by Consultant.

10. RELATIONSHIP OF PARTIES

10.1 General. Consultant is, and shall at all times remain as to City, a wholly independent contractor.

10.2 No Agent Authority. Consultant shall have no power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability on behalf of City or otherwise to act on behalf of City as an agent. Consultant, its officers, employees and agents shall not have any power to bind or commit the City to any decision or course of action, and Consultant, its officers, employees and agents shall not represent to any person or party that it or they are acting as agents of the City or that it or they have the power to bind or commit the City. Neither City nor any of its agents shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant’s employees, except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not represent that it is, or that any of its agents or employees are, in any manner employees of City.

10.3 Independent Contractor Status. Under no circumstances shall Consultant or its employees look to the City as an employer. Consultant shall not be entitled to any benefits. City makes no representation as to the effect of Agenda Item #7.4:

Page 33 of 269 ends

Professional Services Agreement — Design Professionals
(City of Sonoma / Olaunu, LLC
336577.2 Page 10 of 25
Approved for use 12/28/2023
this independent contractor relationship on Consultant’s previously earned California Public Employees Retirement System (“CalPERS”) retirement benefits, if any, and Consultant specifically assumes the responsibility for making such a determination. Consultant shall be responsible for all reports and obligations including, but not limited to:
social security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, and workers’ compensation, and other applicable federal and state taxes.

11. INDEMNIFICATION

11.1 Definitions. For purposes of this section 11, “Consultant” shall include Consultant, its officers, employees, servants, agents, or subcontractors, or anyone directly or indirectly employed by either Consultant or its subcontractors, in the performance of this Agreement. “City” shall include City, its officials, officers, agents, employees and volunteers.

11.2 Consultant to Indemnify City. Where the services to be provided by Consultant under this Agreement are design professional services, as that term is defined under Civil Code Section 2782.8, Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless, the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from any and all claims, demands, costs or liability that actually or allegedly arise out of, or pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of Consultant and its agents in the performance of services under this Agreement, but this indemnity does not apply to liability for damages for bodily injury, property damage or other loss, arising from the sole negligence, active negligence or willful misconduct by the City, its officers, official employees, and volunteers. If it is finally adjudicated that liability is caused by the comparative active negligence or willful misconduct of the City, then Consultant’s indemnification and defense obligations shall be reduced in proportion to the established comparative liability of the City and shall not exceed the Consultant’s proportionate percentage of fault.

Accordingly, the parties intend the provisions of this indemnity provision to be interpreted and construed to provide the City with the fullest protection possible under the law, subject to the caveats included in this Agreement. Consultant acknowledges that City would not enter into this Agreement in the absence of Consultant’s commitment to indemnify and protect City as set forth herein.

Agenda Item #7.4:

Page 34 of 269 ends

Professional Services Agreement — Design Professionals
(City of Sonoma / Olaunu, LLC
336577.2 Page 11 of 25
Approved for use 12/28/2023
As respects all acts or omissions which do not arise directly out of the performance of design professional services, including but not limited to those acts or omissions normally covered by general and automobile liability insurance, and to the full extent permitted by law, Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City from and against any claims, demands, losses, liability of any kind or nature (including liability for claims, suits, actions, arbitration proceedings, administrative proceedings, regulatory proceedings, losses, expenses or costs of any kind, whether actual, alleged or threatened, including attorney’s fees and costs, court costs, interest, defense costs, and expert witness fees) where the same arise out of, are in connection with, are a consequence of, or are in any way attributable to, in whole or in part, the performance of this Agreement by Consultant, excepting those which arise out of the active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers.

11.3 Scope of Indemnity. Personal injury shall include injury or damage due to death or injury to any person, whether physical, emotional, consequential or otherwise. Property damage shall include injury to any personal or real property. Consultant shall not be required to indemnify City for such loss or damage as is caused by the sole negligence, active negligence or willful misconduct of the City. If it is finally adjudicated that liability is caused by the comparative negligence or willful misconduct of an indemnified party, then Consultant’s indemnification obligation shall be reduced in proportion to the established comparative liability.

11.4 Attorneys’ Fees. Such costs and expenses shall include reasonable attorneys’ fees for counsel of City’s choice, expert fees and all other costs and fees of litigation. Consultant shall not be entitled to any refund of attorneys’ fees, defense costs or expenses in the event that it is adjudicated to have been non-negligent.

11.5 Defense Deposit. The City may request a deposit for defense costs from Consultant with respect to a claim. If the City requests a defense deposit, Consultant shall provide it within 15 days of the request.

11.6 Waiver of Statutory Immunity. The obligations of Consultant under this section 11 are not limited by the provisions of any workers’ compensation act or similar act. Consultant expressly waives its statutory immunity under such statutes or laws as to City.

Agenda Item #7.4:

Page 35 of 269 ends

Professional Services Agreement — Design Professionals
(City of Sonoma / Olaunu, LLC
336577.2 Page 12 of 25
Approved for use 12/28/2023

11.7 Indemnification by Subcontractors. Consultant agrees to obtain executed indemnity agreements with provisions identical to those set forth here in this section 11 from each and every subcontractor or any other person or entity involved in the performance of this Agreement on Consultant’s behalf. If Consultant fails to obtain such indemnity obligations from others, Consultant agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend City, from and against any and all claims, losses, costs and expenses for any damage due to death or injury to any person and injury to any property resulting from any alleged intentional, reckless, negligent, or otherwise wrongful acts, errors or omissions of Consultant’s subcontractors or any other person or entity involved by, for, with or on behalf of Consultant in the performance of this Agreement. Such costs and expenses shall include reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred by counsel of City’s choice.

11.8 Offset. City shall have the right to offset against any compensation due Consultant under this Agreement any amount due City from Consultant as a result of Consultant’s failure to pay City promptly any indemnification arising under this section 11 of this Agreement and any amount due City from Consultant arising from Consultant’s failure either to (i) pay taxes on amounts received pursuant to this Agreement or (ii) comply with applicable workers’ compensation laws.

11.9 Insurance Not a Substitute. City does not waive any indemnity rights by accepting any insurance policy or certificate required pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant’s indemnification obligations apply regardless of whether or not any insurance policies are determined to be applicable to the claim, demand, damage, liability, loss, cost or expense.

11.10 Civil Code. The parties are aware of the provisions of Civil Code Section 2782.8 relating to the indemnification and the duty and the cost to defend a public agency by a Design Professional and agree that this section 11 complies therewith.

11.11 Indemnification of CalPERS Determination. In the event that Consultant claims or is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction or CalPERS to be eligible for enrollment in CalPERS as an employee of the City, Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City for the payment of any employee and/or employer contributions for CalPERS benefits on behalf of Consultant or its employees, agents, or Agenda Item #7.4:

Page 36 of 269 ends

Professional Services Agreement — Design Professionals
(City of Sonoma / Olaunu, LLC
336577.2 Page 13 of 25
Approved for use 12/28/2023
subcontractors, as well as for the payment of any penalties and interest on such contributions, which would otherwise be the responsibility of City.

11.12 No Employment Benefits. Notwithstanding any federal, state, or local policy, rule, regulation, law or ordinance to the contrary, Consultant shall not qualify for or become entitled to, and hereby agrees to waive any claims to, any compensation, benefit, or any incident of employment by City, including but not limited to eligibility to enroll in CalPERS as an employee of City and entitlement to any contribution to be paid by City for employer contribution and/or employee contributions for CalPERS benefits.

12. INSURANCE

12.1 Insurance Required. Consultant shall maintain insurance as described in this section and shall require all of its subcontractors, consultants, and other agents to do the same. Approval of the insurance by the City shall not relieve or decrease any liability of Consultant. Any requirement for insurance to be maintained after completion of the work shall survive this Agreement.

12.2 Documentation of Insurance. City will not execute this Agreement until it has received a complete set of all required documentation of insurance coverage. However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the Consultant’s obligation to provide them. Consultant shall file with City:
• Certificate of Insurance, indicating companies acceptable to City, with a Best’s Rating of no less than A:VII showing. The Certificate of Insurance must include the following reference: As-Needed PW Consulting Assistance.
• Documentation of Best’s rating acceptable to the City. • Original endorsements effecting coverage for all policies required by this Agreement.
• Complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements affecting the coverage.

12.3 Coverage Amounts. Insurance coverage shall be at least in the following minimum amounts:
• Professional Liability Insurance: $2,000,000 per occurrence, Agenda Item #7.4:

Page 37 of 269 ends

Professional Services Agreement — Design Professionals
(City of Sonoma / Olaunu, LLC
336577.2 Page 14 of 25
Approved for use 12/28/2023
$4,000,000 aggregate
• General Liability:
• General Aggregate: $4,000,000
• Products Comp/Op Aggregate $4,000,000
• Personal & Advertising Injury $2,000,000
• Each Occurrence $2,000,000
• Fire Damage (any one fire) $ 100,000
• Medical Expense (any 1 person) $ 10,000
• Workers’ Compensation:
• Workers’ Compensation Statutory Limits
• EL Each Accident $1,000,000
• EL Disease - Policy Limit $1,000,000
• EL Disease - Each Employee $1,000,000
• Automobile Liability
• Any vehicle, combined single limit $1,000,000
Any available insurance proceeds broader than or in excess of the specified minimum insurance coverage requirements or limits shall be available to the City as additional insured. Furthermore, the requirements for coverage and limits shall be the greater of (i) the minimum coverage and limits specified in this Agreement, or (ii) the broader coverage and maximum limits of coverage of any insurance policy or proceeds available to the named insured.

12.4 General Liability Insurance. Commercial General Liability Insurance shall be no less broad than ISO form CG 00 01. Coverage must be on a standard Occurrence form. Claims-Made, modified, limited or restricted Occurrence forms are not acceptable.

12.5 Worker’s Compensation Insurance. Consultant is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which requires every employer to carry Workers’ Compensation (or to undertake equivalent self-insurance), and Consultant will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this Agreement. If such insurance is underwritten by any agency other than the State Compensation Fund, such agency shall be a company authorized to do business in the State of California.

Agenda Item #7.4:

Page 38 of 269 ends

Professional Services Agreement — Design Professionals
(City of Sonoma / Olaunu, LLC
336577.2 Page 15 of 25
Approved for use 12/28/2023

12.6 Automobile Liability Insurance. Covered vehicles shall include owned if any, non-owned, and hired automobiles and, trucks. Automobile liability insurance shall be evidenced by ISO Form Number CA 0001 covering Code 1 (any auto) or, if Consultant has no owned autos, Code 8 (hired) and 9 (non-owned).

12.7 Professional Liability Insurance or Errors & Omissions Coverage. The deductible or self-insured retention may not exceed $50,000. If the insurance is on a Claims-Made basis, the retroactive date shall be no later than the commencement of the work. Coverage shall be continued for three years after the completion of the work by one of the following: (i) renewal of the existing policy; (ii) an extended reporting period endorsement; or (iii) replacement insurance with a retroactive date no later than the commencement of the work under this Agreement.

12.8 Claims-Made Policies. If any of the required policies provide coverage on a claims-made basis the Retroactive Date must be shown and must be before the date of the contract or the beginning of contract work. ClaimsMade Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five (5) years after completion of the contract of work.

If coverage is canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a Retroactive Date prior to the contract effective date, the Consultant must purchase “extended reporting” coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of contract work.

12.9 Subcontractors. Consultant shall require each of its subcontractors to maintain insurance coverage that meets all of the requirements of this Agreement provided however, that the Agreement Administrator may waive the provision of Errors and Omissions Insurance by subcontractors in his or her sole discretion.

Consultant agrees that if it does not keep the insurance coverages required by this Agreement in full force and effect, City may either (i) immediately terminate this Agreement; or (ii) take out the necessary insurance and pay the premium(s) thereon at Consultant’s expense.

12.10 Proof of Renewal. Consultant shall provide proof that policies of insurance required by this Agreement expiring during the term of this Agreement have been renewed or replaced with other policies providing Agenda Item #7.4:

Page 39 of 269 ends

Professional Services Agreement — Design Professionals
(City of Sonoma / Olaunu, LLC
336577.2 Page 16 of 25
Approved for use 12/28/2023
at least the same coverage. Such proof will be furnished at least two weeks prior to the expiration of the coverages.

12.11 Additional Insured Endorsements. The City, its City Council, Commissions, officers, and employees of Sonoma must be endorsed as an additional insured for each policy required herein, including the general liability and automobile policies, other than Professional Errors and Omissions, for liability arising out of ongoing and completed operations by or on behalf of the Consultant. Consultant’s insurance policies shall be primary as respects any claims related to or as the result of the Consultant’s work. Any insurance, pooled coverage or self-insurance maintained by the City, its elected or appointed officials, directors, officers, agents, employees, volunteers, or consultants shall be noncontributory. All of the policies required under this Agreement shall contain an endorsement providing that the policies cannot be canceled or reduced except on thirty days’ prior written notice to City. Consultant agrees to require its insurer to modify the certificates of insurance to delete any exculpatory wording stating that failure of the insurer to mail written notice of cancellation imposes no obligation, and to delete the word “endeavor” with regard to any notice provisions. All endorsements shall be signed by a person authorized by the insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. General liability coverage can be provided using an endorsement to the Consultant’s insurance at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10 11 85 or both CG 20 10 and CG 20 37.

12.12 Failure to Maintain Coverage. In the event any policy is canceled prior to the completion of the project and the Consultant does not furnish a new certificate of insurance prior to cancellation, City has the right, but not the duty, to obtain the required insurance and deduct the premium(s) from any amounts due the Consultant under this Agreement. Failure of the Consultant to maintain the insurance required by this Agreement, or to comply with any of the requirements of this section, shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement.

12.13 Notices. Contractor shall provide immediate written notice if (i) any of the required insurance policies is terminated; (ii) the limits of any of the required policies are reduced; (iii) or the deductible or self-insured retention is increased. Consultant shall provide no less than 30 days’ notice of any cancellation or material change to policies required by this Agreement. Consultant shall provide proof that cancelled or expired Agenda Item #7.4:

Page 40 of 269 ends

Professional Services Agreement — Design Professionals
(City of Sonoma / Olaunu, LLC
336577.2 Page 17 of 25
Approved for use 12/28/2023
policies of insurance have been renewed or replaced with other policies providing at least the same coverage. Such proof will be furnished at least two weeks prior to the expiration of the coverages. The name and address for Additional Insured Endorsements, Certificates of Insurance and Notices of Cancellation is: City of Sonoma, Attn: Public Works No. 1 The Plaza, Sonoma, California 95476.

12.14 Consultant’s Insurance Primary. The insurance provided by Consultant, including all endorsements, shall be primary to any coverage available to City. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by City and/or its officers, employees, agents or volunteers, shall be in excess of Consultant’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.

12.15 Waiver of Subrogation. Consultant hereby waives all rights of subrogation against the City. Consultant shall additionally waive such rights either by endorsement to each policy or provide proof of such waiver in the policy itself. Consultant agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to affect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not the City has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer. However, the Workers’ Compensation policy shall be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation in favor of the City for all work performed by the Consultant, its employees, agents and subcontractors.

12.16 Report of Claims to City. Consultant shall report to the City, in addition to the Consultant’s insurer, any and all insurance claims submitted to Consultant’s insurer in connection with the services under this Agreement.

12.17 Premium Payments and Deductibles. Consultant must disclose all deductibles and self-insured retention amounts to the City. The City may require the Consultant to provide proof of ability to pay losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses within retention amounts. Ultimately, City must approve all such amounts prior to execution of this Agreement. City has no obligation to pay any premiums, assessments, or deductibles under any policy required in this Agreement. Consultant shall be responsible for all premiums and deductibles in all of Consultant’s insurance policies. The amount of deductibles for insurance coverage required herein are subject to City’s approval.

Agenda Item #7.4:

Page 41 of 269 ends

Professional Services Agreement — Design Professionals
(City of Sonoma / Olaunu, LLC
336577.2 Page 18 of 25
Approved for use 12/28/2023

12.18 Duty to Defend and Indemnify. Consultant’s duties to defend and indemnify City under this Agreement shall not be limited by the foregoing insurance requirements and shall survive the expiration of this Agreement.

13. MUTUAL COOPERATION

13.1 City Cooperation in Performance. City shall provide Consultant with all pertinent data, documents and other requested information as is reasonably available for the proper performance of Consultant’s services under this Agreement.

13.2 Consultant Cooperation in Defense of Claims. If any claim or action is brought against City relating to Consultant’s performance in connection with this Agreement, Consultant shall render any reasonable assistance that City may require in the defense of that claim or action.

14. NOTICES
Any notices, bills, invoices, or reports required by this Agreement shall be deemed received on: (i) the day of delivery if delivered by hand, facsimile or overnight courier service during Consultant’s and City’s regular business hours; (ii) the third business day following deposit in the United States mail if delivered by mail, postage prepaid, to the addresses listed below (or to such other addresses as the parties may, from time to time, designate in writing); or (iii) the day of delivery if emailed to the email address listed below and simultaneously deposited in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, to the address(es) listed below (or to such other addresses as the parties may, from time to time, designate in writing).

If to City:

Mike Berger
City of Sonoma
Public Works
No. 1 The Plaza
Sonoma, CA 95476
Telephone: (707) 938-3681
Email: [email protected]
If to Consultant:

Danial Apt
Olaunu LLC
940 Avenida Presido
San Clemente, CA, 92672
Telephone: 949-449-7980
Email: [email protected]
With courtesy copy to:

Agenda Item #7.4:

Page 42 of 269 ends

Professional Services Agreement — Design Professionals
(City of Sonoma / Olaunu, LLC
336577.2 Page 19 of 25
Approved for use 12/28/2023
David J. Ruderman, Sonoma City Attorney
Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC
670 W. Napa Street, Suite F
Sonoma, CA 95476
Telephone: (707) 986-8091
Facsimile: (707) 509-7295
Email: [email protected]

15. SURVIVING COVENANTS
The parties agree that the covenants contained in paragraph 5.14 (Records), section 11 (Indemnity), paragraph 12.8 (Claims-Made Policies), paragraph 13.2 (Consultant Cooperation in Defense of Claims), and paragraph 18.1 (Confidentiality) of this Agreement shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement, subject to the provisions and limitations of this Agreement and all otherwise applicable statutes of limitations and repose.

16. TERMINATION

16.1 City Termination. The City may, in its sole and unfettered discretion and without cause, terminate this Agreement at any time prior to completion by Consultant of the services required. Notice of Termination of this Agreement shall be given in writing to Consultant and shall be sufficient and complete when same is emailed to Consultant and simultaneously deposited in the United States mail postage prepaid and certified, addressed as set forth in section 14 of this Agreement. The Agreement shall be terminated upon receipt of the Notice of Termination by Consultant. If City should terminate this Agreement, the Consultant shall be compensated for all work satisfactorily performed prior to time of receipt of termination notice, and shall be compensated for materials ordered by the Consultant or his/her employees, or services of others ordered by the Consultant or his/her employees prior to receipt of Notice of Termination whether or not such materials or final instruments of services of others have actually been delivered, provided that the Consultant or its employees are not able to cancel such orders for materials or services of others. Compensation for the Consultant in the event of termination by the City shall be determined by the City Public Works Director in accordance with the percentage of project completed. In the event that this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this paragraph

16.1, Consultant shall not be entitled to any additional compensation over Agenda Item #7.4:

Page 43 of 269 ends

Professional Services Agreement — Design Professionals
(City of Sonoma / Olaunu, LLC
336577.2 Page 20 of 25
Approved for use 12/28/2023
that provided herein; nor shall Consultant be entitled to payment for any alleged damages or injuries (including lost opportunity damages) purportedly caused by the termination of this Agreement by the City pursuant hereto.

16.2 Consultant Termination. Consultant may terminate this Agreement upon thirty (30) days written notice to the City only for good cause.

Consultant’s written notice of termination shall contain a full explanation of the facts and circumstances constituting good cause. In the event of termination, all notes, sketches, computations, drawings and specifications, or other data, whether complete or not, produced through the time of the City’s last payment shall be relinquished to the City. The City may, at its own expense, make copies or extract information from any such notes, sketches, computations, drawings, and specifications, or other data whether complete or not.

16.3 Termination for Material Breach. Should the Consultant fail to perform any of its obligations hereunder, within the time and in the manner provided or otherwise violate any of the terms of this Agreement, the City may terminate this Agreement by giving written notice of such termination, stating the reasons for such termination in such event.

Consultant shall be compensated as above, provided, however, there shall be deducted from such amount the amount of damage if any, sustained by City by virtue of the Consultant’s breach of this Agreement.

16.4 Remedies. In no event shall Consultant be entitled to receive more than the Maximum Amount that would be paid to Consultant for the full performance of the services required by this Agreement as provided in paragraph 3.6 above and as otherwise provided in this Agreement.

17. INTERPRETATION OF AGREEMENT

17.1 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

17.2 Integration of Exhibits. All documents referenced as exhibits in this Agreement are hereby incorporated into this Agreement. In the event of any material discrepancy between the express provisions of this Agreement and the provisions of any document incorporated herein by reference, the provisions of this Agreement shall prevail. This instrument contains the entire Agreement between City and Consultant with respect Agenda Item #7.4:

Page 44 of 269 ends

Professional Services Agreement — Design Professionals
(City of Sonoma / Olaunu, LLC
336577.2 Page 21 of 25
Approved for use 12/28/2023
to the transactions contemplated herein. No other prior oral or written agreements are binding upon the parties. Amendments hereto or deviations herefrom shall be effective and binding only if made in writing and executed on by City and Consultant.

17.3 Headings. The headings and captions appearing at the commencement of the sections hereof, and in any paragraph thereof, are descriptive only and for convenience in reference to this Agreement. Should there be any conflict between such heading, and the section or paragraph thereof at the head of which it appears, the language of the section or paragraph shall control and govern in the construction of this Agreement.

17.4 Pronouns. Masculine or feminine pronouns shall be substituted for the neuter form and vice versa, and the plural shall be substituted for the singular form and vice versa, in any place or places herein in which the context requires such substitution(s).

17.5 Severability. If any term or provision of this Agreement or the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall, to any extent, be invalid or unenforceable, then such term or provision shall be amended to, and solely to the extent necessary to, cure such invalidity or unenforceability, and shall be enforceable in its amended form. In such event, the remainder of this Agreement, or the application of such term or provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected, and each term and provision of this Agreement shall be valid and be enforced to the fullest extent permitted by law.

17.6 No Presumption Against Drafter. Each party had an opportunity to consult with an attorney in reviewing and drafting this Agreement. Any uncertainty or ambiguity shall not be construed for or against any party based on attribution of drafting to any party.

18. GENERAL PROVISIONS

18.1 Confidentiality. All data, documents, discussion, or other information developed or received by Consultant for performance of this Agreement are deemed confidential and Consultant shall not disclose it without prior written consent by City. City shall grant such consent if disclosure is legally required. All City data shall be returned to City upon the termination or expiration of this Agreement.

Agenda Item #7.4:

Page 45 of 269 ends

Professional Services Agreement — Design Professionals
(City of Sonoma / Olaunu, LLC
336577.2 Page 22 of 25
Approved for use 12/28/2023

18.2 Conflicts of Interest. Consultant maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Consultant warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. Consultant further agrees to file, or shall cause its employees or subcontractor to file, a Statement of Economic Interest with the City’s Filing Officer if required under state law in the performance of the services. For breach or violation of this warranty, City shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer, or employee of City, during the term of his or her service with City, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom.

18.3 Non-assignment. Both parties shall not delegate, transfer, subcontract or assign its duties or rights hereunder, either in whole or in part, without the other party’s prior written consent, and any attempt to do so shall be void and of no effect. City shall not be obligated or liable under this Agreement to any party other than Consultant.

18.4 Binding on Successors. This Agreement shall be binding on the successors and assigns of the parties.

18.5 No Third-Party Beneficiaries. Except as expressly stated herein, there is no intended third-party beneficiary of any right or obligation assumed by the parties.

18.6 Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement.

18.7 Non-Discrimination. Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical condition), creed, national origin, color, disability as defined by law, disabled veteran status, Vietnam veteran status, religion, age (40 and above), medical condition (cancer-related), marital status, ancestry, or sexual orientation, or any other unlawful basis, including without limitation, the City’s NonAgenda Item #7.4:

Page 46 of 269 ends

Professional Services Agreement — Design Professionals
(City of Sonoma / Olaunu, LLC
336577.2 Page 23 of 25
Approved for use 12/28/2023
Discrimination Policy adopted as Resolution #25-2019. Consultant shall take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment without regard to race, sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical condition), creed, national origin, color, disability as defined by law, disabled veteran status, Vietnam veteran status, religion, age (40 and above), medical condition (cancer-related), marital status, ancestry, sexual orientation, or any other unlawful basis. Employment actions to which this provision applies shall include, but not be limited to, the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment, and selection for training.

Consultant agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause.

18.8 Waiver. No provision, covenant, or condition of this Agreement shall be deemed to have been waived by City or Consultant unless in writing signed by one authorized to bind the party asserted to have consented to the waiver. The waiver by City or Consultant of any breach of any provision, covenant, or condition of this Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other provision, covenant, or condition.

18.9 Excused Failure to Perform. Consultant shall not be liable for any failure to perform if Consultant presents acceptable evidence, in City’s sole judgment, that such failure was due to causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of Consultant.

18.10 Remedies Non-Exclusive. Each right, power and remedy provided for herein or now or hereafter existing at law, in equity, by statute, or otherwise shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other right, power, or remedy provided for herein or now or hereafter existing at law, in equity, by statute, or otherwise. The exercise, the commencement of the exercise, or the forbearance from the exercise by any party of any one or more of such rights, powers or remedies shall not preclude the simultaneous or later exercise by such party of any or all of such other rights, powers or remedies.

Agenda Item #7.4:

Page 47 of 269 ends

Professional Services Agreement — Design Professionals
(City of Sonoma / Olaunu, LLC
336577.2 Page 24 of 25
Approved for use 12/28/2023

18.11 Attorneys’ Fees. In the event of a dispute arising out of the terms of this Agreement, including any action brought to declare the rights granted herein or to enforce any of the terms of this Agreement, the party prevailing in such dispute shall be entitled to all reasonable costs and litigation expenses actually incurred, including fees of attorneys and expert witnesses.

18.12 Venue. The venue for any litigation shall be Sonoma County, California and Consultant hereby consents to jurisdiction in Sonoma County for purposes of resolving any dispute or enforcing any obligation arising under this Agreement.

18.13 Living Wage. Nonprofit service contractors which receive contracts from the City of $75,000 or more in a 12-month period, and for-profit service contractors who receive contracts from the City of $10,000 or more in a 12- month period, provided they have more than six employees, may be subject to the City’s Living Wage Ordinance. Sub-contractors with $50,000 or more in annual gross receipts may also be subject to the Living Wage Ordinance. Unless otherwise exempt in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance (Sonoma Municipal Code Chapter 2.70), this Agreement is subject to applicable provisions of the Living Wage Ordinance of the City as amended from time to time and available on the City’s website.

18.14 Counterparts; Electronic Signatures. This Agreement may be signed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall be deemed one and the same instrument. The parties acknowledge and agree that this Agreement may be executed by electronic signature, which shall be considered as an original signature for all purposes and shall have the same force and effect as an original signature. Without limitation, “electronic signature” shall include faxed or emailed versions of an original signature, electronically scanned and transmitted versions (e.g., via pdf) of an original signature, or a digital signature.

18.15 Recitals. The Recitals are incorporated by this reference. [Signatures on following page]
Agenda Item #7.4:

Page 48 of 269 ends

Professional Services Agreement — Design Professionals
(City of Sonoma / Olaunu, LLC
336577.2 Page 25 of 25
Approved for use 12/28/2023
TO EFFECTUATE THIS AGREEMENT, the parties have caused their duly authorized representatives to execute this Agreement as of the last date indicated below:
“City”
City of Sonoma
By:________________________________
Signature
Printed: David Guhin
Title: City Manager
Date:______________________
“Consultant”
Olaunu, LLC
By:________________________________
Signature
Printed: Daniel Apt
Title: President
Date:______________________
Attest:

By:__________________________________
Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk
Date:________________________
By:________________________________
Signature
Printed:_____________________________
Title:_______________________________
Date:______________________
Approved as to form:

By:__________________________________
David J. Ruderman, City Attorney
Date:________________________
Agenda Item #7.4:

Page 49 of 269 ends

Professional Services Agreement — Design Professionals
(City of Sonoma / Olaunu, LLC
336577.2 Page 26 of 1
Approved for use 12/28/2023
“EXHIBIT A”
Scope of Work
Agenda Item #7.4:

Page 50 of 269 ends

EXHIBIT A
Olaunu
As-Needed Engineering Consul�ng Assistance
For the City of Sonoma
July 1, 2024
Scope of Work
The highest priority will be to ensure con�nued progress to implement the Advanced Meter Infrastructure (AMI) Project. A kickoff mee�ng is tenta�vely planned for March 6, 2024. Mr.

Bonigut will provide project management and coordina�on with staff, the contractor, project consultant(s) and others as needed to ensure �mely and orderly comple�on of work to implement this project within the established budget and �meframe. As the AMI project proceeds, there are many other ac�vi�es for which support will be needed, including:
• Develop Requests for Proposals for as-needed structural engineering and electrical engineering & maintenance services, plus tree maintenance/arborist services. Provide coordination support to manage the RFP process through issuance of RFPs to City Council award of agreements with selected consultants.
• Prepare initial City Facilities inventory and assessment to serve as an aid in prioritizing recommended CIP facility repair and replacement projects. • Provide oversight and coordination for the Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) project to ensure its timely completion.
• Support completion of work and project reporting and closeout activities for the Prop. 68 Parks funding grant.
• Inspection and closeout of private development project work (primarily related to work required within the public right-of-way and compliance with various Conditions of Approval related to Public Works). The City has a staffed engineering technician position and environmental compliance technician to handle this. My role will be to help coordinate staff and provide guidance and training/mentoring to improve effectiveness and efficiency of these activities.
• Manage designated Capital Improvement Projects (CIP), including coordination of various consultants and staff to track schedule and budget and consistency with project objectives. Review consultant and contractor deliverables and submittals, including pay estimates, invoices and other documentation. This may also include support to ensure compliance with California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) public contracting and prevailing wage requirements.
• Support implementation of paving and concrete repair programs, with an emphasis on updating and modernizing various existing technical guidance and mapping/inventory documents.
• Other activities that may arise as needed (e.g. assist with annual budget development, monitoring and implementation, grant management, Water Board/regulatory documentation, Caltrans coordination and billing, etc.) Agenda Item #7.4:

Page 51 of 269 ends

EXHIBIT A
Meetings and Overall Coordination
With all of the projects and activities above, Mr. Bonigut’s role will be to minimize your administrative and managerial burden so that you can focus on other issues. The City will be kept updated on activities and obtain concurrence/approval when appropriate before proceeding on key issues. Mr. Bonigut will provide routine updates and check-ins, and will prepare a concise weekly summary of key activities and time spent on each.

Work Location and Hours
Except during the initial startup period of this contract, most work will be conducted remotely.

However, in-person meetings, project site visits, etc., will be conducted as needed. Services will be provided on a part-time basis at roughly 20-24 hours per week on average.

Information and Resource Needs
To access and use various project files, continued access to the City’s network and key information/financial systems will be needed.

Deliverables
The varied types of projects and activities will dictate the specific work products to be completed. However, the primary deliverable under this agreement will be a weekly summary of activities and time spent on each.

Cost
The hourly billing rate will be $150.00. There will be no mileage charge for vehicle travel that may be required to attend meetings, visit project sites, meet with outside agencies, etc.

Agenda Item #7.4:

Page 52 of 269 ends

336577.2
“EXHIBIT B”
Approved Fee Schedule
(Fee schedule is included with Exhibit A)
Agenda Item #7.4:

Page 53 of 269 ends

336577.2
“EXHIBIT C”
Campaign Contribution Disclosure Form
Agenda Item #7.4:

Page 54 of 269 ends

336577.2

CAMPAIGNCONTRIBUTIONDISCLOSUREPROVISIONS
Cities are subject to the campaign disclosure provisions detailed in Government Code Section 84308.

Please carefully read the following information to
determine if the provisions apply to you. If you
determine that the provisions are applicable, the
Campaign Disclosure Form must be completed and
returnedtothe Citywithyourapplication.

No City Councilmember or other City official shall accept, solicit, or direct a campaign contribution of more than $250 from any party1 or agent2 for 12 months after the
City approves a contract. This prohibition commences
when an application is filed, or a proceeding is otherwise initiated.

A party to a City proceeding shall disclose on the record of the proceeding any campaign contribution of more than $250 by a party or agent to any City Councilmember or other City official during the preceding 12 months. No party to a City proceeding, or agent, shall make a campaign contribution to a City Councilmember or other City official during a proceeding and for 12 months after the City approves a
contract.

A City Councilmember or other City official who received a campaign contribution of more than $250 within the
preceding 12 months from any party, or agent, to a
proceeding shall disclose that fact on the record of the proceeding, and shall abstain from participating in the proceeding. However, if he or she returns the portion of a campaign contribution in excess of $250 within 30 days of knowing about the contribution and the relevant
proceeding, he or she may participate in the proceeding. 1 “Party” is defined as any person who files an
application for, or is the subject of, a proceeding.
2 “Agent” is defined as a person who represents a party in connection with a proceeding. If an individual acting as an agent also is acting as an employee or member of
a law, architectural, engineering, or consulting firm, or a similar entity or corporation, both the individual and the entity or corporation are agents. When a closed
corporation is a party to a proceeding, the majority
shareholder is subject to these provisions.

To determine whether you or your agent made a campaign
contribution of more than $250 to a City Councilmember or other City official within the preceding 12 months, you must aggregate all such contributions.

Names of current City Councilmembers and other City officials are available on the City’s website. If you have questions about Government Code Section 84308, FPPC regulations, or the Campaign Disclosure Form, please contact the City Clerk.

CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION DISCLOSURE FORM
(a) Document:
□ License
□ Lease
□ Permit
□ Franchise
□ Other Contract
□ Other Entitlement
Name and address of any party, or agent, who has contributed more than $250 to any City Councilmember or other City official within the preceding 12 months:

1. ____________________________________

2. ____________________________________

3. ____________________________________
(b) Date and amount of contribution:

Date Amount $
Date Amount $
(c) Name of City Councilmember or other City official to whom contribution was made:

1. ____________________________________

2. ____________________________________

3. ____________________________________
(d) □ Check here If no contributions have been made to any Councilmember or other City official in the preceding 12 months.
(e) I certify that the above information is provided to the best of my knowledge.

Printed Name
Signature
Date Phone
Agenda Item #7.4:

Page 55 of 269 ends

City of Sonoma
Agenda Item Summary
Meeting: City Council - 17 Jul 2024
Department
Public Works
Staff Contact
Michael Berger, Public Works Director
Agenda Item Title
Adopt a Resolution to 1) Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with Horticultural Associates in an Amount Not to Exceed $50,000 Annually to Provide As-Needed Certified Arborist Services; 2) Reject All Proposals Received for On-Call Tree Maintenance Services; and 3) Direct Public Works Staff to Re-Issue a Request for Proposals for On-Call tree Maintenance Services
Summary
The Public Works Department occasionally has a need for specialized Certified Arborist consulting expertise to assess the health of trees and provide expert recommendations to support removal or provide guidance on appropriate remediation or trimming/tree maintenance work. The Department also has a need for contractors to provide tree removal, planting and maintenance work and to respond to tree-related emergencies. Instead of soliciting for this support each time such services are required, the Public Works Department recommends entering into master “on-call” agreements so that qualified firms will already be under contract and ready to quickly assist the City when the need for Certified Arborist and tree maintenance services arises.

A Request for Proposals (RFP) for Certified Arborist and tree maintenance services was issued by the Public Works Department on April 22, 2024. One proposal for Certified Arborist services was received, and two proposals for tree maintenance services were received. The proposal for Certified Arborist services was from Horticultural Associates (John Meserve, Principal and Sole Proprietor), who has provided high quality services to the City of Sonoma Public Works and Planning Departments on past projects. Staff recommends approving a master agreement with Horticultural Associates so that City departments have a Certified Arborist professional available when needed.

The proposed On-Call Master Agreement with Horticultural Associates (attached) would be for a three-year term. During this time, Certified Arborist services will be provided on an as-needed basis per the City’s requested need, with cost based on Horticultural Associates’ hourly rate schedule. The total amount for all work shall not exceed $50,000 annually, with work approved only to projects/activities that have been approved in the adopted budget. Execution of the proposed On-Call Master Agreement does not guarantee that any task orders will be initiated during the life of the agreement. Approval of the proposed agreement with Horticultural Associates does not preclude the City from entering into additional agreements with other Certified Arborist firms should the need arise.

Regarding the tree maintenance solicitation, staff expected a larger number of proposals, and learned that several other companies were not aware of the tree maintenance RFP. To foster an increased response and competition, staff recommends rejecting all tree maintenance proposals received and conducting a new RFP solicitation. Rejecting the existing proposals is the mechanism required to formally close the current RFP process so that a new one can proceed, it is not an indication of the quality and responsiveness of the proposals received.

Agenda Item #7.5:

Page 56 of 269 ends

Contractors who submitted tree maintenance proposals under the current RFP will be able to and will be invited to re-submit under a new RFP solicitation. Staff will conduct enhanced outreach to help foster increased awareness of the new tree maintenance RFP.

Recommended Council Action
Adopt a Resolution to: 1) authorize the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Horticultural Associates in an amount not to exceed $50,000 annually to provide as-needed Certified Arborist services; 2) reject all proposals received for on-call tree maintenance services; and 3) direct Public Works staff to re-issue a Request for Proposals for on-call tree maintenance services.

Alternative Actions
Council discretion.

Financial Impact
Task orders issued under this agreement will be funded from projects and activities that have been approved in the adopted annual budget.

Page 57 of 269 ends

City of Sonoma
RESOLUTION # ___- 2024
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SONOMA TO 1) AUTHORIZE THE CITY

MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH HORTICULTURAL ASSOCIATES IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $50,000 ANNUALLY TO PROVIDE AS-NEEDED CERTIFIED ARBORIST SERVICES; 2) REJECT ALL PROPOSALS RECEIVED FOR ON-CALL TREE MAINTENANCE SERVICES; AND 3) DIRECT PUBLIC WORKS STAFF TO RE-ISSUE A REQUEST

FOR PROPOSALS FOR ON-CALL TREE MAINTENANCE SERVICES
WHEREAS, the Public Works Department occasionally has a need for specialized Certified Arborist expertise and tree maintenance services to support various maintenance and construction activities; and WHEREAS, it is preferable to enter into a master “on-call” agreement so that one or more qualified firms will already be under contract and ready to quickly assist the City when the need for Certified Arborist and tree maintenance services arises; and
WHEREAS, a Request for Proposals (RFP) for Certified Arborist and tree maintenance services was issued by the Public Works Department on April 22, 2024 and one Certified Arborist and two tree maintenance services proposals were received; and
WHEREAS, based on a review of the Certified Arborist proposal and demonstrated past successful experience providing services to the City of Sonoma, Horticultural Associates is deemed highly qualified to provide as-needed Certified Arborist services to the City of Sonoma; and WHEREAS, the proposed on-call master agreement will be for a term of three years, and execution of the agreement does not guarantee that any task orders will be issued; and WHEREAS, only two tree maintenance proposals were received and Public Works staff learned that several other license tree maintenance contractors were not aware of the tree maintenance RFP; and

WHEREAS, to encourage a greater number of proposals from licensed tree maintenance contractors, it is beneficial to reject all current tree maintenance proposals and pursue a new tree maintenance RFP solicitation with increased outreach efforts to promote greater participation.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Sonoma that the City Manager is authorized to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Horticultural Associates in an amount not to exceed $50,000 annually to provide as-needed Certified Arborist services.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all tree maintenance proposals received under the current tree maintenance RFP solicitation are hereby rejected.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Public Works Department is hereby directed to conduct a new tree maintenance RFP solicitation, including increased outreach efforts to increase awareness of the RFP and foster greater participation.

RESOLVED, PASSED, AND ADOPTED this 17th day of July 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
________________________________
John Gurney, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Rebekah Barr, City Clerk
Agenda Item #7.5:

Page 58 of 269 ends

H??TlgyLTU?A *— L
Mac/dz?
Consultants in Horticulture and Arbor/'culture

PROPOSAL
Certified Arborist Services
City OfSonoma
Prepared for:

Mike Berger
City of Sonoma
N o. 1 The Plaza
Sonoma, CA 95476
Prepared by:

JohnC. Meserve
ISA Cer?fied Arborist, WE #0478A
ISA Quali?ed Tree Risk Assessor /TRAQ
May 15, 2024
Agenda Item #7.5:

Page 59 of 269 ends

Consultants in Horticulture and ArboricLI/ture i/JJ?/V/Z/ /] PO Box 1261, Glen Ellen, CA 95442 May 14, 2024
Mr. Mike Berger
City of Sonoma
No. 1 The Plaza
Sonoma, CA 95476
Re: Statement of Qualificationsfor Certi?ed Arborist Services lVlike,
I am submitting this Transmittal Letter and attached supporting documents in response to your Request for Proposal for Certified Arborist Services.

I am the sole proprietor of Horticultural Associates, a small professional firm supplying arboricultural and horticultural expertise to public and private entities. As owner and sole proprietor I am authorized to obligate my business, and my signature 15 provided at the end of this letter as requested.

Our office, and the location where office work will be performed, is located at 13750 Arnold Drive in Glen Ellen, California. Our office is located approximately 15 minutes from Sonoma. No other firms or offices will be utilized as part of this project.

I have thoroughly read the RFP for Certified Arborist Services and understand and accept the contract general conditions, 1nsurance requirements, and will review any addendum that might be generated in the future.

Attached to this Letter of Transmittal you will find documentation regarding our qualifications to provide the required services, including references to similar work and an extensive list of both public and private client references, with individual contact names and current telephone numbers.

Based on the potential size of the project, I expect to perform all project work myself as principal arborist. No sub—consultants are expected to be utilized at this time, based on As no sub—consultants are being employed, no documentation 15 being provided regarding their role1n
the project Our schedule of chargesis as follows: Principal Arborist— $160 per hour ~ Voice 707793573911 Fax 707-935-7103
~
Agenda Item #7.5:

Page 60 of 269 ends

Mr. Mike Berger
5-14-24

Page 2 of 2 ends

The attached documentation illustrates our qualifications and experience for this project.

For additional information or insight please Visit our website at:
www.HorticulturalAssociates.org
Our contact information follows:

Physical Address:
13750 Arnold Drive
Glen Ellen, California
Mailing Address:

PO. Box 1261
Glen Ellen, CA 95442
Email Address: [email protected]
Office Telephone: (707) 935—3911
Cell Telephone: (707) 484-2683
This proposal is in compliance with the Request for Proposal and the City’s Standard Maintenance Services Agreement and no exceptions to either are proposed.

Thank you for your consideration; I look forward to the opportunity of continuing our work together.

ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor/TRAQ
ASCA Qualified Tree and Plant Appraiser/ TPAQ
Agenda Item #7.5:

Page 61 of 269 ends

INTRODUCTION

QUALIFICATIONS

BIOGRAPHY
Agenda Item #7.5:

Page 62 of 269 ends

JOHNC. MESERVE
Consulting Arborist and Horticulturist

INTRODUCTION
Horticultural Associates is a professional consulting firm dedicated to the sciences 0f horticulture and arboriculture. Specializing in the technical understanding of plant and tree growth, we act as an independent information resource providing assessments, recommendations, and management options.

Our full range of tree and plant consulting services focuses on problem solving in the commercial landscape and urban forest. We conduct tree inventories, prepare tree management reports, and develop tree preservation plans. We also conduct plant problem analysis, pest and disease assessments, structural evaluations, and soil and irrigation investigations.

Our background blends practical experience in commercial plant propagation and production with technical expertise in the areas of horticulture and arboriculture. This unique combination allows our clients to benefit from our knowledge and insight. Our arborists are certified and our company founder, who holds a degree in Environmental Horticulture, offers a high level of expertise accumulated over three decades of experience. Our firm’s extensive knowledge of tree and plant species, as well as its comprehensiveunderstanding of the various environmental conditions that affect plant growth, are the foundations of our success.

We will provide you with a pragmatic management solution to optimize the growth, appearance, and performance of your trees or plants. Our experience will enable us to generate design recommendations and management options tailored to your needs.

As arboricultural and horticultural experts, Horticultural Associates assists a wide range of clients including law firms, insurance companies, property managers, developers, land planners, public utilities, state and municipal agencies, architects and landscape architects, engineers, universities and schools, and home owners.

We are respected in legal, environmental, and regulatory arenas as they pertain to trees, plants, and vegetation. We provide third party advice, expert testimony in the courtroom, and, for insurance companies, determination of the value of tree damage or loss. We make frequent appearances at public and municipal assemblies such as design review boards, planning commissions, and city council meetings to provide expertise and opinion regarding development related tree issues,
We maintain current of to local tree ordinances and vegetation management requirements, as well as local and state environmental regulations, including those associated with the California Environmental Quality Act. We collaborate with designers and contractors of all types, and understand the myriad components associated with land development. HORTICU LTURAL ASSOCIATES PO. Box 1261- Glen Ellen- CA- (707) 935-3911 Agenda Item #7.5:

Page 63 of 269 ends

JOHNC. MESERVE
Consulting Arborist and Horticulturist

QUALIFICATIONS
Horticultural Associates is a full-service consulting firm, dedicated to the fields of horticulture and arboriculturei We specialize in assessing and managing trees and provide a full range of horticultural consulting services focused on problem-solving in the commercial landscape and urban forest. We are degreed horticulturalists and certified arborists.

Our clients, located throughout the West Coast, include municipalities, design firms, developers, attorneys, insurance companies, and plant professionals. Our background and experience are highly unique. Practical experience in commercial growing and propagating, as well as technical expertise in the areas of horticulture and arboriculture, provide us with the knowledge and insight required to evaluate health issues and produce pragmatic management solutions for plant growth issues.

Expertise in species selection and in—depthknowledge of the various environmental conditions which affect plant growth are the foundations for planting success. Our experience combines these to provide design recommendations, management options, and problem solving.

International Society of Arboriculture
Long term member of tree industry organization
-International Society of Arboriculture
Certified Arborist, WCISA #0478, Certified by the Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture
' International Society of Arboriculture
Quali?ed Tree Risk Assessor/TRAQ, certified through education and testing to provide tree and plant appraisals
0 American Society of Consulting Arborists
QualifiedTree and Plant Appraiser/TPAQ, certified through education and testing to provide tree hazard and risk assessments
-State Licensed Landscape Contractor, #401782
Licensed in the State of California, category 028, LandscapeContracting 'State Licensed Pest Control Adviser, #1038 (categoriesA,B,C) (197772001) Licensed by the State of California to provide written pest control recommendations; over 250 hours of continuing education
' California Polytechnic University, BS, Environmental Horticulture, with honors 1979 A foundation in education, followed by over 30 years of practical field experience Identi?cation of Landscape Plants, to future designers -American Society of Consulting Arborists Arboriculture Consulting Academy, Providence Rhode Island, 1999 'Irrigation System Evaluation Short Course i California Department of Water Resources it: California PolytechnicState University HORTICULTURAL ASSOCIATES P.O.Box1261' Glen Ellen- CA' (707) 9356911 Agenda Item #7.5:

Page 64 of 269 ends

' University of California Cooperative Extension (UCCE), Instructor Instructor for Landscape Management short course
'California State Certi?ed Small Business, (SB) #59484

BIOGRAPHY
JohnC. Meserve
ConsultingArborist, Horticulturist, and Urban Forest Specialist JohnC. Meserve began his career in horticulture and arboriculture over 40 years ago, and has been consulting in northern California since 1984. He received his Bachelor of Science degree in Environmental (Ornamental) Horticulture in 1977 from California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo, graduating with academic honors.

Following graduation he worked as a State licensed landscape contractor, State licensed pest control advisor and operator, and retail nursery manager. He also has experience as a commercial plant propagator, production grower, production manager, and sales manager at large wholesale nurseries in southern and northern California. Meserve has been an International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist (WCISA #0478) since 1989, and graduated from the American Society of Consulting Arborists consulting academy in 1999.

Meserve has enjoyed the opportunities to share his knowledge with design students in the School of Landscape Architecture at the University of California, Berkeley. As an adjunct faculty member for 4 years, he taught courses in Landscape Horticulture and Field Identification of Landscape Plants. He has also taught for the University of California Extension program at Berkeley.

HORTICULTURAL ASSOCIATES PO, Box 1261' Glen Ellen' CA- (707) 935~3911 Agenda Item #7.5:

Page 65 of 269 ends

CURRICULUM VITAE
Agenda Item #7.5:

Page 66 of 269 ends

JOHN C. MESERVE

CONSULTING ARBORIST AND HORTICULTURIST
PO. Box 1261, Glen Ellen, CA 95442
‘CURRICULUM VITAEEducation
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo,California Bachelor of Science Degree in Ornamental Horticulture, graduated with honors, 1979. Member Pi Alpha Xi National Honor Society. National Flower Judging Team, 1977.

Professional Experience
- 1990 ~ Present
Sole Proprietor of Horticultural Associates, Glen Ellen.

Horticultural Associates specializes in horticultural and arboricultural consulting Weprovide expertise to a wide range ofdesign?rms, developmentcompanies, municipalities,state and local agencies, attorneys, and insurance ?rms,
- 1986 — 1990
Adjunct instructor at the University of California, Berkeley School of Environmental Design, Depaitment of Landscape Architecture, Adjunct Instructor, Landscape Horticulture (LA 112), and Field IdentificationofLandscape Plants (L.A. 11l).

Taught graduate and undergraduate students various technical aspects ofhorticulture and ornamental plant identification,with a focuson design curriculum. - 1984 ~ 1989
Principal/Consulting Horticulturist for Horticultural Technical Services, Santa Rosa.

Developed and managed a professional consulting?rmproviding horticultural expertise to landscape architects.municipal agencies, developers, and homeowners ’ associations.
0 1981 — 1984
Sales Manager, Skylark Wholesale Nursery, Santa Rosa.

Responsiblefor sales at a 27 acre wholesale nursery, specializing in drought tolerant plants native to Californiaand other Mediterranean regions ofthe world. 0 1977 — 1981
Production Manager/Grower, Venco Wholesale Nurseries, Oxnard.

Responsiblefor over 800,000 square feetofa commercialproduction greenhouse, with three growers, and [10 employees
0 Student Manager of Horticulture Unit and Greenhouses at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. Responsiblefor overseeing a horticulture teaching facility. Professional Registrations and Af?liations international Society of Arboriculture - Certi?ed Arborist WE #0478A 707-484-2683 [email protected] Agenda Item #7.5:

Page 67 of 269 ends

0 International Society of Arboriculture - Tree Risk Assessment Qualified American Society of Consulting Arborists — Tree and Plant Appraisal Quali?ed State of California LandscapeContractors License # 401782 State ofCalifornia Pest Control Advisors License #AA0138, categories A, B, & C. 1977 through 2000.

International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), membership Society of Commercial Arboriculture/ArboricultureResearch and Education Academy California Urban Forests Council
American Society of Consulting Arborists, Arboriculture Consulting Academy, 1999.

Professional Seminars Organized and Managed
Regional ISA Seminar, Trees & the Law
Regional ISA Seminar, Tree Management
University of California Cooperative Extension (UCCE), Berkeley, Landscape Management Board of Directors and Committees- Past and Present
Kenwood School District, Board of Trustees
Sonoma County ReLeaf, Board Member
San Francisco Friends of the Urban Forest, Board Member Sonoma EcologyCenter, Board Member
Sebastopol Laguna de Santa Rosa, Advisory Committee
Water Use Classi?cation of Landscape Species (WUCOLS III), Regional Committee Sonoma Valley Vintage Festival, Board Member and Vice President Kenwood Soccer Club, Board Member
Rotary International, Charter Board Member, InternationalChairman, Member of the Year ‘ 18/19
City of Sonoma Tree Committee Commissioner
County of Sonoma, Zone 3A Flood Control Advisory Committee, appointed by Sonoma County Supervisor Susan Gori
Jack London State Park, Natural Resources Committee
City of Sonoma Parks, Recreation and Open Space Committee Commissioner (PROS) Other Volunteer Organizations
Santa Rosa Youth Soccer League, Kenwood Soccer Club, coach, 10 years California Youth Soccer Association, level 8, Referee license California Youth Soccer Association, level F, Coaching license Kenwood 4H, Team Leader — Horticulture
Men of Spirit, Community Volunteer
Restorative Resources, Restorative Justice Facilitator
Pest Control Advisors License Requires 20 hours per year, with a total of450 hours completed through 2000. International Society of Arboriculture Requires 10 hours per year, with more than 300 hours completed American Society of Consulting Arborists Requires 15 hours per year, with more than 120 hours completed 707-484~2683. [email protected] Agenda Item #7.5:

Page 68 of 269 ends

SCOPE OF SERVICES PROVIDED
Agenda Item #7.5:

Page 69 of 269 ends

JOHNC. MESERVE
Consulting Arborist and Horticulturist

SCOPE OF SERVICES PROVIDED
We specialize in the science of trees, and rely on 35 years of experience and expert knowledge to diagnose problems and develop action and management plans to protect your trees and encourage their health and safety. Our goal is to provide you with objective information regarding your individual ornamental tree, native oak woodland, or urban forest site. Our practical recommendations can be utilized in the field to improve appearance, encourage health and vitality, improve safety, promote a green environment, or plan for construction and development.

We provide a wide range of tree consulting and referral services to public agencies, design firms, developers, non-profit organizations, and homeowners. These services include health and structural assessments, pest and disease diagnosis and treatment, and pruning recommendations. They also include tree assessment and inventory work for existing commercial projects, new development projects, and tree management plans for homeowner associations.

Tree consultation, diagnosis, and inventory projects completed to date have included work on well over 100,000 trees for a wide variety of public and private clients. We provide realistic, practical recommendations and solutions in all our consultations.

While trees are entirely biotic in nature, they also have important political,social, and economic influences and challenges.We pride ourselves in the ability to understand and balance a wide range of human perspectives as they relate to the management of trees.

I Health Assessment
Inspect and determine what factors may be affecting tree health or Vigor, including pest infestation, disease infection, change in environmental conditions, construction impacts, and soil or water related problems. Provide speci?c action steps to improve and invigorate tree health.

I Structural Assessment
Assess whether trees are hazardous or pose unnecessary risk, based on structural integrity, architecture, or location; determine whether pruning can effectively reduce risk or improve stability and integrity. Provide specific action steps to improve structural condition.

Identify insects, pests, or diseases affecting tree health or appearance; develop action steps to manage or eliminate specific problems, including modification of cultural conditions to improve health, pesticide or fungicide recommendations, or low-impact, integrated approachesto pest management.HORTICU LTURAL ASSOCIATES PO. Box 1261- Glen Ellen. CA- (707) 935—3911 Agenda Item #7.5:

Page 70 of 269 ends

Pruning Recommendations
Generate tree—specificpruning recommendations for single trees, project areas, or urban forests; pruning speci?cations prescribe specific action steps to improve structural integrity, modify canopy cultural conditions, or improve aesthetics. Where large populations or trees are involved, prioritize pruning procedures based on the available budget. Supervise pruning contracts.

Construction Planning
Evaluate development or improvement plans and estimate impacts on individual trees; develop construction techniques,construction details, and management measures to protect tree health and structural integrity during and after the construction process; recommend alternative designs and approaches to minimize tree damage and promote long term tree health.

Construction Monitoring
Work with construction personnel and monitor construction activity around trees to be preserved; supervise construction activity in critical areas; document activity for owner or municipality verification.

Casualty Loss Appraisals
Determine realistic dollar value for tree damage or loss caused by natural, accidental, or intentional acts. Assess natural casualty losses such as damage due to storms, high winds, drought, or low temperatures.

Tree Inventories
Establishesthe location and species of each tree throughout the site and documents this information on a site plan for permanent long—termreference. Each tree is assigned an identification number, which is utilized for reference, planning, or action steps. The inventory step is a one—timeproject. All planning is based on the information provided in this permanent document, and all reference to trees is made from it.

Tree Assessments
Individually reviews each tree documented during the inventory to determine what short or long term management steps are required to optimize health, appearance, or safety.

Included are issues of hazards, aesthetics, pruning, physical problems with hardscape, cultural problems, pest and disease, or other management issues. The assessment generates specific recommendations for action suitable for use by the appropriate landscape maintenance or pruning contractor.

Combines information generated during the inventory and assessment phases into a site specific, long-term action plan. The plan specifies action steps and timing, based on priorities set by site management and the annual budget available for tree resources. Specifies what to do and when to do it. Completion of tree care action steps are budgeted to occur over a specific time period. HORTICU LTURAL ASSOCIATES PO. Box 1261' Glen Ellen. CA0 (707) 935—3911 Agenda Item #7.5:

Page 71 of 269 ends

Specimen Tree Transplanting
Manage and supervise specimen tree transplanting; locate sources of, or find buyers for, large specimen trees or unusual species; supervise establishment of trees after transplanting.

Mediation of Tree Disputes
Provide objective third party arbitration in disputes regarding tree related issues; evaluate conditions and circumstances leading to dispute or con?ict; develop satisfactory solutions.

Water Conservation
Provide recommendations for reducing water use in the commercial landscape HORTlCU LTURAL ASSOCIATES PO. Box 1261- Glen Ellen- CA- (707) 9356911 Agenda Item #7.5:

Page 72 of 269 ends

EXAMPLES OF SPECIFIC PROJECTS
Agenda Item #7.5:

Page 73 of 269 ends

Our office is located in the North Bay region of the greater San Francisco Bay Area. We serve and welcome clients throughout the west coast vicinity and beyond.

EXAMPLES OF SPECIFIC PROJECTS
City of Sonoma, Planning 8: Public Works Departments
Provide direct contract services to prepare arborist reports and arborist assessments for development or renovations within city limits. Has included numerous subdivisions, minor subdivisions, single family homes, condominiums, and sidewalk reconstruction projects.

Work directly with City planners to provide reports and recommendations. Work with Public Works staff in the field.

Provide service as a member of the Sonoma Tree Committee to peer review arborist reports and assessments prepared by others, and review tree removal requests. Prepared advisory recommendations for the City of Sonoma Planning Commission.

City of Novato, Public Works Department
Provide consulting services to evaluate hazard trees, assess preservation of trees in relation to Public Works projects, including drainage, street improvements, road widening, underground utility installation, and other public works improvement projects. Extensive work on evaluating trees that have damaged sidewalks as part of city wide pavement rehabilitation projects. Worked directly with Public Works engineers and field staff.

City of Novato Planning Department, StoneTree GolfCourse 8 Renaissance Estates Provide field assessment of existing trees and vegetation, monitor construction and establishment of golf course facilities among preserved trees, monitor construction of adjacent subdivision, worked with developer and planning consultant to preserve designated trees and documented overall impacts, provide monitoring services on a regular basis to determine whether revegetation efforts comply with EIR success requirements, work with contractors, golf course managers, construction managers, developers, planning consultants and city staff to implement a successful project.

Town of Windsor, Public Works Department
Provide direct contract services to the Public Works Department to evaluate hazard trees, trees in conflict with utilities or road widening, prepare revegetation and restoration plans, conduct extensive inventories for site of wastewater treatment. Worked directly with Public Works engineers.

Town of Windsor, Planning Department
Prepare a comprehensiveTree Ordinance with the specific goal of no-net-loss of native tree species within city limits. Define parameters for tree removal, define heritage and non— heritage trees, discuss impacts of trees on the environment and their value to the community. Prepare an aggressive tree replacement and mitigation schedule to replace the loss of canopy cover when trees are removed. Establish aggressive bonding requirements Director, Planning staff, and City Council to produce an Ordinance suitable for city needs. Provide direct contract services to the Planning Department to prepare arborist reports, tree inventories, and tree removal assessments for development within city limits. Has included numerous subdivisions, minor subdivisions, single family homes, motels and wineries. Worked directly with Planning Director and Flaming staff. HORTICU LTURAL ASSOClATES PO. Box 1261 - Glen Ellen- CA- (707) 93573911 Agenda Item #7.5:

Page 74 of 269 ends

Town of Windsor, Parks and Recreation Department
Provide direct contract services to the Parks and Recreation Department to prepare arborist reports, hazard evaluations, and health and structural assessments. Document the condition of trees in many Town parks on a periodic basis and provide recommendations for action and management.

City of Cotati, Planning & Public Works Departments
Provide consulting services to evaluate various tree conditions present within the City.

Review tree removal requests, hazardous trees, and con?icts during construction projects.

Consult with Public Works personnel on projects including grading, drainage, street trees, and park trees. Work directly with Planning Director, Planning staff, and Public Works staff.

Sonoma County Public Works Department, Vegetation Management Division Provide on—callcontract consulting services as staff arborist to County agency for tree related issues in County right-of—ways.Work directly with department managers and field crew to evaluate and assess roadside hazard trees, Sudden Oak Death symptomatic trees, declining trees, tree damaged sidewalk hazards, and other assessments as needed. Provide documentation and photographs.

Sonoma County Public Works Department, Environmental Division Provide on—callcontract consulting services as staff arborist to the Environmental Division of Public Works. Work directly with environmental engineers on various issues regarding trees in native areas, creeks, and watersheds. Provide input for revegetation and restoration projects. Coordinate with contractors and provide monitoring services as needed.

City of Larkspur, Public Works Department
Provide consulting services to evaluate hazard trees, assess preservation of trees in relation to Public Works projects, including drainage, street improvements, road widening, underground utility installation, and other public works improvement projects. Extensive work on evaluating trees that have damaged sidewalks as part of city wide pavement rehabilitation projects. Worked directly with Public Works engineers and field staff.

Sonoma County Regional Parks Department
Provide on—callcontract consulting services to various park planners, field superintendents, and site managers. Assess hazard trees, damaged trees, provide tree preservation and protection plans, management plans, attend meetings with park planners, managers, and county supervisors, interact with the public on sensitive vegetation issues, provide documentation.

Sonoma Luxury Resort, Healdsburg
Conduct tree inventory and provide detailed documentation for 8,000 trees on a 258 acre site, work with EIR consultants to determine and assess environmental impacts to site, work with civil engineers, landscape architects and architectsto design a project which minimizes impacts to native tree population. Work with Healdsburg City staff to coordinate efforts, attend numerous design review committee meetings, planning commission meetings, and Geysers Wastewater Pipeline, Sonoma County Inventory and assess trees expected to be impacted by 40 mile pipeline construction, estimate pipeline construction impacts on all trees, develop preservation and mitigation recommendations for contractor use, monitor all construction activities related to adjacent trees, work with project engineers, regulatory agencies, and environmental monitors to ensure optimum protection and preservation. HORTICU LTURAL ASSOCIATES PO. Box 1261- Glen Ellen- CA. (707) 935-3911 Agenda Item #7.5:

Page 75 of 269 ends

PROFESSIONAL REFERENCES
Agenda Item #7.5:

Page 76 of 269 ends

JOHNC. MESERVE
Consulting Arborist and Horticulturist

PROFESSIONAL REFERENCES
Municipal Clients
(707) 838-1000 Kim Voge, Planner, Town of Windsor, PO. Box 100, Windsor, CA, 95492 Developed and assisted in writing the current Windsor Tree Ordinance; provide Tree Preservation and Protection Plans for development, provide construction monitoring; design review services; peer review services, tree inventories, approved staff arborist (707)838‘1000 Carl Euphrat, Senior Civil Engineer, Town of Windsor, P.0r Box 100, Windsor, CA 95492 Provide performance evaluations of tree and landscape conditions; monitor construction activities on behalf of the Town for street rehabilitation and other public works projects; provide risk and hazard evaluations
(707) 838-5383 Olivia Lemen, Parks and Facilities Manager, Town of Windsor, PO. Box 100, Windsor, CA 95492
Provide health and hazard evaluations of street and public park trees , approved staff arboris’t (707) 838—5397 Charlie Johnson, Parks and Facilities Maintenance Supervisor, Town of Windsor, PO. Box 100, Windsor, CA 95492
Provide health and hazard evaluations of street and public park trees, approved staff arborist (415) 899-8246 Goshia Wood?n, Engineer, City of Novato Public Works, 1922 Machin Avenue, Novato, CA 94931
Provide Tree Preservation and Protection Plans for development; provide construction monitoring; design review services; peer review services, approved staff arborist; review tree removal requests.

Management Division, 2175 Airport Blvd, Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Provide health, hazard and risk assessment of roadside trees throughout Sonoma County. HORTICULTURAL ASSOCIATES PO Box 1261I Gien Ellen. CA. (707) 9353911 Agenda Item #7.5:

Page 77 of 269 ends

(707) 933-2206 Wendy Atkins, Planner, City of Sonoma, No. 1 The Plaza, Sonoma, CA 95476 Provide Tree Preservation and Protections plans for residential and commercial development in the City of Sonoma; provide risk and hazard assessment of City owned trees; Provide performance evaluations of tree and landscape conditions; member of Sonoma Tree Committee evaluating all requests to remove trees
(707) 56572231 Rex Cummins, Public Works Engineer, Sonoma County Public Works Department, 2300 County Center Drive, #3100, Santa Rosa CA 95403
inventory, evaluate, and determine construction impacts for trees in the County right—of—way as part of road widening and improvement activities; evaluate roadside trees for hazard and risk; evaluate tree damage caused by vehicle accidents.
(415) 899—8900 Peter Skala, Public Works Engineer,City of Novato, 75 Rowland Way, #200, Novato, CA, 94945
Provide performance evaluations of tree and landscape conditions; monitor construction activities on behalf of the City for street rehabilitation and other public works projects; provide risk and hazard assessment of City owned trees; evaluate root damage to public hardscapeand infra-structure. (415) 899—8900 JulianSkinner, Public Works Director, City of Larkspur, 400 Magnolia Avenue, Larkspur, CA, 94939
Provide performance evaluations of tree and landscape conditions; monitor construction activities on behalf of the City for street rehabilitation and other public works projects; provide risk and hazard evaluations
Additional references from representative industries can also be provided upon request HORTICULTURAL ASSOCIATES PO Box 1261- Glen Ellen- CA0 (707) 935-3911 Agenda Item #7.5:

Page 78 of 269 ends

FEE SCHEDULE
Agenda Item #7.5:

Page 79 of 269 ends

"o?Tl[J TlHALConsultants in Horticulture and Arbariculture c;.44?K/?/Z7K PO Box 1261, Glen Ellen, CA 95442

FEE SCHEDULE
January 1, 2024 through January 1, 2025
JOHNC. MESERVE

CONSULTING ARBORIST
ISA Cer?fied Arborist, WE #0478A
ISA Quali?ed Tree Risk Assessor/TRAQ
ASCA QualifiedTree and Plant Appraiser /TPAQ
$160 per hour
Horticultural Associates
PO. Box 1261
Glen Ellen, CA 95442
~ Voice 707793573911 Fax 707-935-7103~
Agenda Item #7.5:

Page 80 of 269 ends

City of Sonoma
Agenda Item Summary
Meeting: City Council - 17 Jul 2024
Department
Public Works
Staff Contact
Michael Berger, Public Works Director
Agenda Item Title
Adopt a Resolution Adopting the Plans and Specifications for the 2024 Citywide Slurry Seal Project No. 2401 (Project); Accepting Bids and Awarding a Contract to Pavement Coatings, Co.; Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Construction Contract in the Amount of $294,950.00, and Authorizing the City Manager to Approve $29,495.00 (10%) in Contingency Summary
The 2024 Citywide Slurry Seal Project (project) is part of the City’s commitment to keeping the City’s streets and multi-use pathways in a safe and functional condition for multi-modal circulation. The project generally involves street surface treatment (slurry seal) for up to eighteen (18) streets throughout the City. Specifically, the improvements consist of surface preparation; crack seal; removal and replacement of pavement striping and markings; public outreach; protection of existing utility structures, curb and gutter, and cross gutter; traffic control; and other related work.

Budget
On June 19, 2024, the City Council adopted the Fiscal Year 24-25 Capital Improvement Budget.

This budget included funding for the Annual Slurry Seal projects, as follows:
$350,000.00 (Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA). This is from Senate Bill 1: Road Repair and Accountability Act. The total budget available for the Slurry Seal Project:
$350,000.000.

Streets and pathways to be included in the 2024 Citywide Slurry Seal Project were selected using the City’s Pavement Management Program and coordination with City Staff. The City advertised the project for bids in May 2024. The bid opening was held on July 9, 2024. Four (4) bids were received as follows in Table One:

Table One - Bid Results
Company Bid
Pavement Coatings, Co $294,950.00
VSS International $314,120.00
Sierra Nevada Construction $340,007.00
American Asphalt Repair and Resurfacing $346,910.00
For the areas included in the project, please refer to Table 2 (Slurry Seal Areas), and Figure 1 (Location and Limits of Slurry Seal).

The lowest responsive bid from a responsible bidder was $294,950.00 from Pavement Coatings Co. Including contingency ($29,495.00), the total project cost is $324,445.00, which is within the project budget of $350,000.00.

Agenda Item #7.6:

Page 81 of 269 ends

As noted above, the funding source for the construction of the project ($350,000.00) is from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) through Senate Bill 1: Road Repair and Accountability Act (SB1). On April 6, 2017, the California State Legislature passed the Road Repair Accountability Act, winning a two-thirds majority in both the Senate and Assembly. The bill levied a 12 cent per gallon tax on gasoline and 20 cent per gallon tax on diesel fuel, and it also raised annual vehicle registration fees from $25 to $175, depending on the vehicle value.

The revenue raised from this measure is used primarily to repair existing roads, bridges, add bicycle lanes, and increase funding for mass transit projects. SB 1 invests $5.4 billion annually in California’s transportation systems, and every county in California is receiving infrastructure investments form this legislation. State transportation infrastructure receives roughly half of the SB 1 funding. Cities, counties, and transit agencies will also share $26 billion in funding to improve streets and roads, expand the state’s growing network of pedestrian and cycle routes, and increase transit service.

For cities, SB 1 doubles the amount of revenues received from the state for local street maintenance and rehabilitation needs. Annually, $500 to $650 million is going to cities statewide, allocated on a per capita basis. A vast majority of the new revenues for the cities comes out of the newly created RMRA where cities have to prioritize fixing their existing infrastructure first before having some additional flexibility for those funds for other transportation needs. Under SB 1, the City of Sonoma estimates that it will receive over $200,000.00 per year. This funding has been programmed for slurry seal maintenance to protect and preserve our streets. SB 1 is an important source of funding for cities across California.

Recommended Council Action
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution adopting the specifications for the 2024 Citywide Slurry Seal Project No. 2401; accepting the bids and awarding the contract to Pavement Coatings, Co., authorizing the City Manager to execute a construction contract for $294,950.00, and authorizing the City Manager to approve $29,495.00 (10%) in contingency.

Alternative Actions
Reject all bids. Project streets would not be slurry sealed, deferring maintenance to a later time, although the City’s SB 1- RMRA fund are restricted to such purposes. The condition of the City’s pavement would continue to decline.

Financial Impact
The City Council approved funding in the amount of $350,000.00 of Senate Bill 1: The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (SB 1) funds for construction of the 2024 Citywide Slurry Seal Project in the Fiscal Year 24/25 Capital Improvement Program budget. The project construction utilizing funds provided through SB 1 would be limited to slurry seal treatment and striping for street segments. The use of SB 1 funds for this project was authorized by the City Council through Resolution #33-2021 at their May 17, 2021, meeting.

Environmental Review Status
Environmental Impact Report
Negative Declaration
Exempt
Not Applicable
Approved/Certified
No Action Required
Action Requested
Agenda Item #7.6:

Page 82 of 269 ends

Attachments
Resolution Slurry Seal Contract Award
Figure 1 - Location and Limits of Slurry Seal
Table 2 - Slurry Seal Areas
Agenda Item #7.6:

Page 83 of 269 ends

CITY OF SONOMA
RESOLUTION # ___- 2024

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SONOMA ADOPTING THE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE 2024 CITYWIDE SLURRY SEAL PROJECT NO 2401 (PROJECT); ACCEPTING THE BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO PAVEMENT COATINGS CO; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $ 294,950.00, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO APPROVE $29,495.00 (10%) IN CONTINGENCY
WHEREAS the 2024 Citywide Slurry Seal Project No. 2401 (project) was advertised for construction bids and four (4) bids were received electronically and publicly opened in an online bid opening on July 9, 2024; and
WHEREAS, Pavement Coatings, Co. (Contractor) has been determined to be the lowest responsible bidder in the amount of $294,950.00; and
WHEREAS, the City Council budgeted a total of $350,000.00 in the Fiscal Year 24/25 Capital Improvement Program budget for the construction of the project, which was anticipated to cover the cost of construction contract, a 10% contingency, and the cost of construction administration and engineering support during construction; and
WHEREAS, the project budget for the construction phase is sufficient to cover the Contractor’s bid amount as well as a 10% contingency and the cost of construction administration and engineering support during construction; and
WHEREAS, the project is categorically exempt under CEQA pursuant to Section 15301(c) (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA guidelines; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Sonoma hereby adopts the Specifications for the 2024 Citywide Slurry Seal Project No. 2401; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City council of the City of Sonoma declares, based on the information contained within the bid documents, that the bid of the apparent low bidder, Pavement Coatings Co., is responsive; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Sonoma authorizes the City Manager to execute a construction contract in the amount of $294,950.00.

RESOLVED, PASSED, AND ADOPTED this 17th day of July 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
________________________________
John Gurney, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Rebekah Barr, City Clerk
Agenda Item #7.6:

Page 84 of 269 ends

IFigure 3
j. |
Figure 5
— Slurry Seal - Streets Limits
Legend
Parcels
Paper SizeANSlA Cityof Sonoma ProjectNo. 12621875
0 525 1,050 1,575 2,100 N 2024CltYWIde Slurry Seal PM“t RevisionNo. 0000 —:—:l ' ‘ Date May2024 Feet MapHorizoniamaium; Proiection: Lambert NAD19832011 ConformalConic ®_ LOCATIONANDLIMITS Grid:NAD19832011StatePlane California|| FIPS0402 Ft US 0F SLURRYSEAL FIGURE1 NlUS\SantaRosalProiectslSGili2621875\GISlMapslDeliverablesl12621875,5lurrySealProiecLZOQAl aprx, Datasource Created by mnargrave 12621875,00LFIGLlocationAndLirnits Printdate 16May20247121i Agenda Item #7.6:

Page 85 of 269 ends

Limits of Work Approximate Quantity
No. Street (Slurry Seal
Application Area) Limit From Limit To Length
(ft)
Avg.

Width
(ft)
Area
(sf)
1 Davila Court Eastin Drive Cul de Sac 317 33 10,461
2 Eda Court Joaquin Drive Cul de Sac 130 20 2,600
3 Fifth St. East Denmark Street Este Madera Lane 603 30 18,090 4 Fifth St. East Este Madera
Lane
E. MacArthur
Street 683 27 18,441
5 Fifth Street West W. MacArthur
Street
175’ S/O W.

MacArthur St 175 49 8,575
6 Fifth Street West 175’ S/O W.

MacArthur Street Harrington Drive 1287 49 63,063
7 Fourth St. East Patten Street E. Napa Street 636 29 18,444 8 Heather Lane Dead End Andrieux Street 496 33 16,368
9 Hudson Court France Street Cul de Sac 371 33 12,243
10 Jones Street Temp D/E South Engler Street 466 26 12,116 11 Jones Street Napa Road 100’ S/O
Brockman Drive 290 24 6,960
12 Juniper Court White Briar
Drive Cul de Sac 173 27 4,671
13 Junipero Serra Drive Fano Lane Verano Avenue 702 37 25,974 14 Knight Street East MacArthur
Street Elliot Street 887 33 29,271
15 Lubeck Street Fryer Creek
Drive Todd Avenue 417 33 13,761
16 Mariano Drive Fano Lane House #705 302 33 9,966
17 Mitchell Way Joaquin Drive Cul de Sac E/O
Linda Drive 702 33 23,166
18 Osenda Court Joaquin Drive Cul de Sac 105 64 6,720
19 Second Street East East Spain Street House #327 401 23 9,223 20 Sereno Court Avenue Del Oro Cul de Sac 172 27 4,644
21 Todd Avenue Fryer Creek
Drive
Dead End East of
Lubeck Street 477 33 15,741
Total for Base Bid (Streets, Rounded) 330,500
Table 2
Slurry Seal Areas
Agenda Item #7.6:

Page 86 of 269 ends

City of Sonoma
Agenda Item Summary
Meeting: City Council - 17 Jul 2024
Department
Finance
Staff Contact
Prapti Aryal, Finance Director
Agenda Item Title
Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Sonoma Re-Establishing the Appropriations Limit for the Fiscal Year 2023-24 and Establishing the Appropriations Limit for the Fiscal Year 2024-25
Summary
Propositions 4, also known as the Gann initiative, was approved by California voters in 1979 and was revised by Proposition 111 in 1990. These propositions, now Article XIIIB of the California Constitution, require public agencies to adopt an annual appropriations limit.

Appropriations that are subject to this limit (generally, appropriations from proceeds of taxes) may not, with certain exceptions, exceed the appropriations limit.

The appropriations limit is based on a city’s actual appropriations in FY 1978-79, adjusted in each subsequent year by a population factor and cost of living factor. The population factor is the percentage change of the city population or the county population. The State of California Department of Finance provides this data on an annual basis.

For purposes of the cost of living factor, Proposition 111 added to Article XIIIB: “‘Change in the cost of living’ for an entity of local government, other than a school district or a community college district, shall be either (A) the percentage change in California per capita personal income from the preceding year, OR (B) the percentage change in the local assessment roll from the preceding year for the jurisdiction due to the addition of local non-residential new construction. Each entity of local government shall select its change in the cost of living pursuant to this paragraph annually by a recorded vote of the entity's governing body.” (Cal.

Const., art. 13B, § 8.) The local assessment roll is the assessed valuation of the jurisdiction.

The change in the appropriations limit is calculated annually by staff from the information provided by the State of California Department of Finance (Attachment B), as well as the percentage change in assessed valuation due to non-residential new construction provided by HdL, the City’s Property Tax consultant, (Attachment C). After the annual appropriations limit is calculated, the appropriations that are subject to the limit are determined. The appropriations limit only applies to appropriations that are funded from proceeds of taxes.

The Fiscal Year 2024-25 appropriations limit was calculated using the Statewide Per Capita Person Income increase of 3.62% and the County-wide population decrease of -0.27%. The formula uses a combined adjustment of these two factors which results in the prior year appropriations limit being increased by 3.08%.

Using this percentage, the City of Sonoma’s appropriations limit increased $815,163 to $28,486,332. Appropriations that are subject to the limit are $18,385,432; the City is well under the appropriation limit by $10,100,900. Details of the computations are presented in Attachment A – Appropriations Limit Calculation FY 2024-25.

Agenda Item #7.7:

Page 87 of 269 ends

Please note that there was an error in calculating the factor for the FY 2023-24 appropriation limit. Initially, the appropriation limit was calculated using a 4.44% increase in Statewide Per Capita Personal Income and a City-wide population decrease of -1.18%. This calculation resulted in an appropriation limit of $27,453,757. However, according to Article XIIIB, the law allows the public entity to use either the City or County Population Change for this factor. Upon recalculating for FY 2023-24, we used a County-wide population decrease of -0.53% instead.

This adjustment, combined with the 4.44% increase in Statewide Per Capita Personal Income, resulted in an increase of the appropriation limit by $181,412. Therefore, the revised appropriation limit for FY 2023-24 is $27,635,169.

The proposed resolution confirms the City Council's decision to use the County population change percentage as the population factor and the California Per Capita Personal Income (CA PCI) percentage change to adjust the Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Years 2023-24 and 2024-

25. The resolution reestablishes an Appropriations Limit of $27,635,169 for FY 2023-24 and $28,486,332 for FY 2024-25, as detailed in Attachments A and D.

Recommended Council Action
Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Sonoma Re-Establishing the Appropriations Limit for the Fiscal Year 2023-24 and Establishing the Appropriations Limit for the Fiscal Year 2024-25
Alternative Actions
Council discretion.

Financial Impact
Not applicable.

Environmental Review Status
Environmental Impact Report
Negative Declaration
Exempt
Not Applicable
Approved/Certified
No Action Required
Action Requested
Attachments
Resolution Appropriations Limit
Attachment A - Appropriation Limit FY 2024-25 Sonoma
Attachment B - CA Department of Finance - Price _ Population Information Letter Attachment C - HdL Property Tax Reports Addendum
Attachment D - Appropriation Limit FY 2023-24 Sonoma Revised Agenda Item #7.7:

Page 88 of 269 ends

City of Sonoma
RESOLUTION # _____-2024

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SONOMA REESTABLISHING THE APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 AND ESTABLISHING THE APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT 2024-25
WHEREAS, Article XIIIB of the California Constitution provides that the total annual Appropriations Subject to Limit of each governmental entity, including this city, shall not exceed the Appropriations Limit of such entity of government, as determined by adjusting the prior fiscal year Appropriations Limit by the greater of the changes in city or county population, combined with the greater of the change in California per capita personal income or the change in the local assessment roll due to the addition of local non-residential construction; and WHEREAS, pursuant to said Article XIIIB of said California Constitution and Section 7900 et seq., of the California Government Code, the City is required to set its Appropriations Limit annually; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager of the City of Sonoma has interpreted the technical provisions of said Article XIIIB computations and has caused the numbers upon which the City’s Appropriation limit is based to be calculated; and
WHEREAS, the Fiscal Year 2023-24 Appropriations Limit has been re-calculated using the following:
• The State of California per capital personal income increase determined by the California Department of Finance for the calendar year 2023, 4.44%; and • The County of Sonoma population decrease for the calendar year 2024 as determined by the California Department of Finance, -0.53%.

WHEREAS, the Fiscal Year 2024-25 Appropriations Limit is calculated using the following:
• The State of California per capital personal income increase determined by the California Department of Finance for the calendar year 2024, 3.62%; and • The County of Sonoma population decrease for the calendar year 2023 as determined by the California Department of Finance, -0.27%.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Sonoma that:

1. The annual adjustment factors used to re-calculate the Fiscal Year 2023-24 Appropriations Limit shall be the change in the State of California per capital personal income increase of 4.44% and the County of Sonoma population decrease of -0.53%.

2. The recalculated Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2023-24 shall be and is hereby set in the amount of $27,635,169.

3. The Fiscal Year 2023-24 Adopted Budget appropriations subject to the Appropriations Limit remains unchanged $18, 407,302.

Agenda Item #7.7:

Page 89 of 269 ends

4. The annual adjustment factors used to calculate the Fiscal Year 2024-25 Appropriations Limit shall be the change in the State of California per capital personal income increase of 3.62% and the County of Sonoma population decrease of -0.27%.

5. The new Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2024-25 shall be and is hereby set in the amount of $28,486,332.

6. The Fiscal Year 2024-25 Adopted Budget appropriations subject to the Appropriations Limit is $18,385,432.

PASSED AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Sonoma at their regular meeting held on the 17th day of July 2024, by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
________________________________
John Gurney, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk
Agenda Item #7.7:

Page 90 of 269 ends

Percent Change Amount
Appropriations limit for fiscal year ended June 30, 2024 $27,635,169 Inflation Factor 1.0362

0.9973
x 1.0308
28,486,332
Proceeds from Taxes 19,129,391
Less Exclusions (Fed Mandates, Qualified Capital Outlay and Debt Service): (743,959) FY 2024-25 Appropriations Subject to Limit $18,385,432
FY 2024-25 Appropriations Limit $28,486,332
Under/(Over) Fiscal Year 2024-25 Appropriations Limit $10,100,900 Proposition 4 establishes a formula limiting expenditures to the "proceeds of taxes" and is adjusted each year for inflation and population growth.

Population Factor
Combined Factor
Appropriations limit for fiscal year ending June 30, 2025 Appropriations in Fiscal Year 2024-25 Compared to Limit

APPROPRIATION LIMIT WORKSHEET
For the Year Ending June 30, 2025
Calculation of Spending Limit
Adjustment factors:

Agenda Item #7.7:

Page 91 of 269 ends

April 30, 2024
Dear Fiscal Officer:

Price Factor and Population Information
Appropriations Limit
California Revenue and Taxation Code section 2227 requires the Department of Finance to transmit an estimate of the percentage change in population to local governments.

Each local jurisdiction must use their percentage change in population factor for January 1, 2024, in conjunction with a change in the cost of living, or price factor, to calculate their appropriations limit for fiscal year 2024-25. Attachment A provides the change in California’s per capita personal income and an example for utilizing the factors to calculate the 2024-25 appropriations limit. Attachment B provides the city and unincorporated county population percentage change. Attachment C provides the population percentage change for counties and their summed incorporated areas. The population percentage change data excludes federal and state institutionalized populations and military populations.

Population Percent Change for Special Districts
Some special districts must establish an annual appropriations limit. California Revenue and Taxation Code section 2228 provides additional information regarding the appropriations limit. Article XIII B, section 9(C) of the California Constitution exempts certain special districts from the appropriations limit calculation mandate. Special districts required by law to calculate their appropriations limit must present the calculation as part of their annual audit. Any questions special districts have on this requirement should be directed to their county, district legal counsel, or the law itself. No state agency reviews the local appropriations limits.

Population Certification
The population certification program applies only to cities and counties. California Revenue and Taxation Code section 11005.6 mandates Finance to automatically certify any population estimate that exceeds the current certified population with the State Controller’s Office. Finance will certify the higher estimate to the State Controller by June 1, 2024. Please note: The prior year’s city population estimates may be revised. The per capita personal income change is based on historical data.

If you have any questions regarding this data, please contact the Demographic Research Unit at (916) 323-4086.
/s Richard Gillihan

RICHARD GILLIHAN
Chief Operating Officer
Attachment
Agenda Item #7.7:

Page 92 of 269 ends

May 2024
Attachment A
A. Price Factor: Article XIII B specifies that local jurisdictions select their cost of living factor to compute their appropriation limit by a vote of their governing body. The cost of living factor provided here is per capita personal income. If the percentage change in per capita personal income is selected, the percentage change to be used in setting the fiscal year 2024-25 appropriation limit is:

Per Capita Personal Income
Fiscal Year Percentage change
(FY) over prior year
2024-25 3.62
B. Following is an example using sample population change and the change in California per capita personal income as growth factors in computing a 2024-25 appropriation limit.
2024-25:

Per Capita Cost of Living Change = 3.62 percent
Population Change = 0.17 percent
Per Capita Cost of Living converted to a ratio: 3.62 + 100 = 1.0362 100
Population converted to a ratio: 0.17 + 100 = 1.0017
100
Calculation of factor for FY 2024-25: 1.0362 x 1.0017 = 1.0379

Agenda Item #7.7:

Page 93 of 269 ends

Fiscal Year 2024-25
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2023 to January 1, 2024 and Total Population, January 1, 2024 County
City
Percent Change
23-24
--- Population Minus Exclusions ---
1-1-23 1-1-24
Total
Population
1-1-24
Sonoma
Cloverdale
Cotati
Healdsburg
Petaluma
Rohnert Park
Santa Rosa
Sebastopol
Sonoma
Windsor
Unincorporated
-1.11
-1.06
-0.32
-0.02
-0.04
-0.07
-0.96
-0.98
-0.91
-0.40
8,808
7,381
11,020
58,457
43,838
175,013
7,366
10,636
25,628
130,333
8,710
7,303
10,985
58,445
43,821
174,890
7,295
10,532
25,394
129,812
8,710
7,303
10,985
58,445
43,821
174,890
7,295
10,532
25,394
130,777
County Total -0.27 478,480 477,187 478,152
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

Agenda Item #7.7:

Page 94 of 269 ends

NONRESIDENTIAL NEW CONSTRUCTION

THE CITY OF SONOMA
2022/23 TO 2023/24 TAX YEARS - IN PARCEL NUMBER ORDER
Current Year
Improvements
Prior Year
Parcel Use Category Owner Improvements
Percent
Change
018-162-020-000 Commercial Swiss Hotel Inc 112,169 114,712 + 2.3% 018-182-014-000 Industrial Foley Family Wines Inc 4,947,849 6,949,721 + 40.5% 018-202-077-000 Commercial E D I Associates Lp 2,524,320 2,606,693 + 3.3% 018-213-001-000 Commercial Wilson Robert And Erica Jo 315,895 340,062 + 7.7% 018-222-017-000 Recreational Sonoma Community Center Inc 321,764 335,865 + 4.4% 018-241-057-000 Commercial Exchange Bank 1,119,649 1,174,039 + 4.9% 018-251-050-000 Commercial Northwest Dealerco Holdings Llc 115,944 124,644 + 7.5% 018-251-059-000 Commercial S And N Company Sonoma Limited 2,333,316 2,405,992 + 3.1% 018-840-017-000 Commercial Halby Thomas M And Halby Pamellia 600,000 650,190 + 8.4% 128-091-008-000 Commercial Map Assetco Llc 32,435,028 33,588,559 + 3.6% 10 Parcels Listed 44,825,934 48,290,477 + 7.7%
This calculation reflects the 2023/24 increase in taxable values for this city due to non-residential new construction as a percentage of the total taxable value Increase (as of the 2023/24 lien year roll date). This percentage may be used as an alternative to the change in California per-capita personal income for calculating a taxing agency's annual adjustment of its Appropriation Limit pursuant to Article XIIIB of the State Constitution as Amended by Proposition 111 in June, 1990.
3,464,543
-896,519
2,568,024
202,432,043

1.27%
Total Change in Non-Residential Valuation Due to New Development Less Automatic 2.000% Assessors's Inflation Adjustment
Actual Change in Non-Residential Valuation
Change in Total Assessed Value
= Alternate 2024/25 Appropriations Limit Factor
Includes taxable primary parcels with known nonresidential use codes, no prior lien year transfers, and improvement value increases greater than 2.0% Change in Total Assessed Value is the assessed value change of the locally assessed secured and unsecured tax rolls .

This report is not to be used in support of debt issuance or continuing disclosure statements without the written consent of HdL, Coren & Cone Data Source: Sonoma County Assessor 2023/24 Secured Tax Rolls Prepared On 3/8/2024 By MV

Page 8 ends

Agenda Item #7.7:

Page 95 of 269 ends

Percent Change Amount
Appropriations limit for fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 $26,600,413 Inflation Factor 1.0444

0.9882
x 1.0321
$27,453,757
Proceeds from Taxes $18,749,249
Less Exclusions (Fed Mandates, Qualified Capital Outlay and Debt Service): ($341,947) FY 2023-24 Appropriations Subject to Limit $18,407,302
FY 2023-24 Appropriations Limit $27,453,757
Under/(Over) Fiscal Year 2023-24 Appropriations Limit $9,046,456 Proposition 4 establishes a formula limiting expenditures to the "proceeds of taxes" and is adjusted each year for inflation and population growth.

Population Factor
Combined Factor
Appropriations limit for fiscal year ending June 30, 2024 Appropriations in Fiscal Year 2023-24 Compared to Limit

APPROPRIATION LIMIT WORKSHEET
For the Year Ending June 30, 2024
Calculation of Spending Limit
Adjustment factors:

Agenda Item #7.7:

Page 96 of 269 ends

Percent Change Amount
Appropriations limit for fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 $26,600,413 Inflation Factor 1.0444

0.9947
x 1.0389
$27,635,169
Proceeds from Taxes $18,749,249
Less Exclusions (Fed Mandates, Qualified Capital Outlay and Debt Service): ($341,947) FY 2023-24 Appropriations Subject to Limit $18,407,302
FY 2023-24 Appropriations Limit $27,635,169
Under/(Over) Fiscal Year 2023-24 Appropriations Limit $9,227,867 Proposition 4 establishes a formula limiting expenditures to the "proceeds of taxes" and is adjusted each year for inflation and population growth.

Population Factor
Combined Factor
Appropriations limit for fiscal year ending June 30, 2024 Appropriations in Fiscal Year 2023-24 Compared to Limit Revised

APPROPRIATION LIMIT WORKSHEET
For the Year Ending June 30, 2024
Calculation of Spending Limit
Adjustment factors:

Agenda Item #7.7:

Page 97 of 269 ends

May 2023
Dear Fiscal Officer:

Subject: Price Factor and Population Information
Appropriations Limit
California Revenue and Taxation Code section 2227 requires the Department of Finance (Finance) to transmit an estimate of the percentage change in population to local governments. Each local jurisdiction must use their percentage change in population factor for January 1, 2023, in conjunction with a change in the cost of living, or price factor, to calculate their appropriations limit for fiscal year 2023-24. Attachment A provides the change in California’s per capita personal income and an example for utilizing the price factor and population percentage change factor to calculate the 2023-24 appropriations limit. Attachment B provides the city and unincorporated county population percentage change. Attachment C provides the population percentage change for counties and their summed incorporated areas. The population percentage change data excludes federal and state institutionalized populations and military populations.

Article XIII B, section 9(C) of the California Constitution exempts certain special districts from the appropriations limit calculation mandate. The code section and the California Constitution can be accessed at the following website: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes.xhtml.

Special districts required by law to calculate their appropriations limit must present the calculation as part of their annual audit. Any questions special districts have on this requirement should be directed to their county, district legal counsel, or the law itself. No state agency reviews the local appropriations limits.

Please Note: The prior year’s city population estimates may be revised. The per capita personal income change is based on historical data.

If you have any questions regarding this data, please contact the Demographic Research Unit at (916) 323-4086.

JOE SPEPHENSHAW
Director
By:

Erika Li
Chief Deputy Director
Attachment
Agenda Item #7.7:

Page 98 of 269 ends

May 2023
Attachment A
A. Price Factor: Article XIII B specifies that local jurisdictions select their cost of living factor to compute their appropriation limit by a vote of their governing body. The cost of living factor provided here is per capita personal income. If the percentage change in per capita personal income is selected, the percentage change to be used in setting the fiscal year 2023-24 appropriation limit is:

Per Capita Personal Income
Fiscal Year Percentage change
(FY) over prior year
2023-24 4.44
B. Following is an example using sample population change and the change in California per capita personal income as growth factors in computing a 2023-24 appropriation limit.
2023-24:

Per Capita Cost of Living Change = 4.44 percent
Population Change = -0.35 percent
Per Capita Cost of Living converted to a ratio: 4.44 + 100 = 1.0444 100
Population converted to a ratio: -0.35 + 100 = 0.9965
100
Calculation of factor for FY 2023-24: 1.0444 x 0.9965 = 1.0407 Agenda Item #7.7:

Page 99 of 269 ends

Fiscal Year 2023-24
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2022 to January 1, 2023 and Total Population, January 1, 2023 County
City
Percent Change
2022-2023
--- Population Minus Exclusions ---
1-1-22 1-1-23
Total
Population
1-1-2023
Sonoma
Cloverdale
Cotati
Healdsburg
Petaluma
Rohnert Park
Santa Rosa
Sebastopol
Sonoma
Windsor
Unincorporated
-0.92
-0.67
-0.72
-0.39
-0.02
-0.47
-1.14
-1.18
-1.07
-0.58
8,869
7,410
10,993
58,552
43,701
175,351
7,433
10,804
25,836
130,783
8,787
7,360
10,914
58,321
43,693
174,523
7,348
10,677
25,560
130,026
8,787
7,360
10,914
58,321
43,693
174,523
7,348
10,677
25,560
130,991
County Total -0.53 479,732 477,209 478,174
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

Agenda Item #7.7:

Page 100 of 269 ends

City of Sonoma
Agenda Item Summary
Meeting: City Council - 17 Jul 2024
Department
Planning and Community Services
Staff Contact
Jennifer Gates, AICP, Community Development
Director
Agenda Item Title
Public hearing to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny a Use Permit Amendment (UA-23-40) and Wine Tasting Use Permit (WTUP-24-1) that would have authorized a vacation rental and wine tasting facility at 301 First Street West under the Adaptive Reuse provisions of the City’s Development Code. The Appellant requests the City Council approve the Use Permit Amendment and Wine Tasting Use Permit and give direction to staff on policy issues concerning the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance.

Summary
Background
The property is a 7,500-square foot parcel on the west side of First Street West roughly one block north of the Plaza. The site is developed with the 5,064 sf historic Ice House, a 1,631 sf wooden barn containing an 800 sf accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and common fitness area, and a detached two-car garage. The primary structure is historic and is a contributing element to the Sonoma Depot Historic District. The first-floor stone structure was constructed in 1906 with a stucco clad second floor residential level added in 1923. Three tandem onsite uncovered parking spaces are on site.

The City of Sonoma Planning Commission granted a Use Permit in May 2018 for the restoration, seismic retrofit and adaptive reuse of the historic Ice House Building and barn.

The 2018 Use Permit allowed limited retail use of the first floor, residential use of the second floor, conversion of the existing barn into an ADU, and seismic retrofit parking credits. The conditions of approval, attached, included:
 Commercial use of the ground floor of the Cooperage Building shall be restricted to a limited retail use consisting of a lifestyle retail store the curates, displays and sells unique or one-of-a kind home furnishings, clothing, artwork, fabrics, and related products.
 The hours of operation for the retail shop (i.e., business hours open to clients, customers and /or the public) shall be limited to 9 am – 7 p.m. six days a week.  The conventional kitchen within the employee breakroom at the back of the retail shop on the ground floor of the Cooperage shall be for the exclusive use of employees. No food shall be prepared in the breakroom or kitchen for public consumption.  Special events and live music shall be prohibited.
 Further use of the property for short-term, vacation rental purposes shall be prohibited.

The property now includes the restored mixed-use Ice House Building and remodeled ADU Barn.

Proposed Project
The proposed project seeks approval of a Wine Tasting Use Permit (WTUP) and Use Permit amendment. The Use Permit amendment is requested to allow a short-term vacation rental in the second floor residence. The application requests that the limited retail use on the first floor Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 101 of 269 ends

be allowed to continue with the wine tasting. These additional uses are being requested after the completion of the previously approved adaptive reuse project to offset the unexpected costs of construction according to the applicant. The recently completed project utilized the adaptive reuse criteria of Section 19.42.030 of the City of Sonoma Development Code for their original project approval in May 2018. . The application requested that criteria be applied again to support the requested additional uses.

On April 18, 2024 the Planning Commission (link to staff report and video) held a public hearing to consider the proposed project and hear public testimony for and against the project. The Planning Commission determined that the applicable findings of approval for the adaptive reuse permit could not be made and directed staff to return to the Planning Commission with an amended resolution recommending denial of the proposed project. The Planning Commission adopted the resolution denying the project on May 16, 2024 (attached).

On May 28, 2024, the property owner submitted a timely appeal. The property owner filed the appeal to request reconsideration of Planning Commission’s denial of their application and provide direction to staff on policy issues related to the Adaptive Reuse ordinance which is attached and summarized below.

Adaptive Reuse
Sonoma Municipal Code Section 19.42.030 (Adaptive reuse), attached, allows historic structures to be used for purposes not otherwise allowed in the base zone if granted a conditional use permit with additional findings as set out in this code section in connection with the adaptive reuse of the property. The proposed project qualifies to utilize the adaptive reuse provisions under criteria 1(b) because it is listed as a locally significant historic resource as the project site is a contributor to the Historic Train District. In 2018, the original project was approved and allowed the retail use through the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance.

However, the Planning Commission determined the proposed uses of a vacation rental and wine tasting facility are not compatible uses with the surrounding residential uses due to their operational characteristics including noise and increased congestion. An addition finding is also required for applications for adaptive reuse as a vacation rental. This finding was not applicable in 2018 because no vacation rental was proposed. To approve the vacation rental, the Planning Commission must find that the alteration or adaptive reuse would:

Restore and rehabilitate a historic structure and/or property, excluding second units, which is listed or eligible for listing on the State Register of Historic Places, that has fallen into such a level of disrepair that the economic benefits of adaptive reuse are necessary to stem further deterioration, correct deficient conditions, or avoid demolition as implemented in the conditions of project approval.

The Planning Commission determined that, because the restoration and renovation was completed in 2023, it could not find the project would "restore and rehabilitate a historic structure that has fallen into such a level of disrepair that the economic benefits of adaptive reuse are necessary to stem further deterioration, correct deficient conditions, or avoid demolition as implemented in the conditions of project approval".

The Appellant believes the Planning Commission’s determinations contradict Sonoma Municipal Code Section 19.42.030. The Appellant claims the adaptive reuse ordinance does not “preclude adding other allowable uses to a historic property’s original adaptive reuse permit following the granting of the initial use permit or completion of the initial project.” They Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 102 of 269 ends

additionally state that the proposed vacation rental and wine tasting uses are compatible with the neighborhood because “[t]he ice house is part of a dynamic mixed use neighborhood which includes restaurants, high occupancy sporting events, picnics, wine tasting, public assembly, residential and farmers market uses less than a five-minute walk from the Ice House front door.”
Recommended Council Action
Deny the appeal and adopt the attached draft City Council Resolution, titled “A Resolution Of the City Council of the City of Sonoma Denying an Appeal and Affirming the Planning Commission’s Decision on May 16, 2024 Denying the Amendment to the Use Permit (UA 23- 40) And Wine Tasting Use Permit (WTUP 24-1) Applications of Michael Ross to Allow a Vacation Rental and Wine Tasting Use Permit At 301 First Street West (APN 018-161-042)." Alternative Actions
1) Affirm the appeal in part or whole, set aside the decision of the Planning Commission, and direct staff to return with a Resolution, with findings reached by the City Council to do so. 2) Request additional information from the appellant to substantiate and support arguments and continue the matter to a future hearing date.
3) Remand the project back to the Planning Commission, with specific direction on what the Planning Commission must consider. The Planning Commission may take final action, or the City Council may direct that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council for consideration.

Financial Impact
N/A
Environmental Review Status
Environmental Impact Report
Negative Declaration
Exempt
Not Applicable
Approved/Certified
No Action Required
Action Requested
Attachments
CC Resolution Denying Appeal
2024 PC Resolution Denial
Appeal Application
SMC 19.42.030 Adaptive Reuse
2018 Cooperage UP Approval
Alignment with Council Goals:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 103 of 269 ends

1 CITY OF SONOMA

CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION # _______ - 2024

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SONOMA
DENYING AN APPEAL AND AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION ON MAY 16, 2024 DENYING THE AMENDMENT TO THE USE PERMIT (UA 23-40) AND WINE TASTING USE PERMIT (WTUP 24-1)

APPLICATIONS OF MICHAEL ROSS TO ALLOW A VACATION RENTAL AND WINE TASTING USE PERMIT AT 301 FIRST STREET WEST (APN 018-161- 042).

WHEREAS, Michael Ross submitted an application for a Use Permit on December 26, 2023 and a Wine Tasting Use Permit on January 18, 2024 at 301 First Street West (APN 018-161-042) (“Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on April 18, 2024, to consider the merits of the Use Permit and Wine Tasting Use Permit and hear testimony in favor of, and in opposition to, the project. The Planning Commission determined that it could not make the findings necessary for approval and provided direction to staff to return to the Planning Commission with a resolution for denial; and WHEREAS, on May 16, 2024, staff presented a resolution for denial that was approved by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, on May 28, 2023, Leslie McQuown, Owner (“Appellant”), filed a timely appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the amendment to the Conditional Use Permit to allow a vacation rental and a wine tasting permit; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing for the Appeal on July 17, 2024.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Sonoma:

I. Record

Page 104 of 269 ends

2 e. All documentary and oral evidence received at public workshops, meetings, and hearings or submitted to the City relating to the Project; f. For documentary and information purposes, the General Plan, its related environmental document, the Sonoma Municipal Code and all other Cityadopted land use plans and ordinances, including, without limitation, specific plans, guidelines and ordinances;
g. All other matters of common knowledge to the Planning Commission, including, but not limited to, City, state, and federal laws, policies, rules, regulations, reports, records and projections related to development within the City of Sonoma and its surrounding areas;
h. The evidence, facts, findings and other determinations set forth in this resolution; and
i. All other documents comprising the record of proceedings pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5.

References to specific reports and specific pages of documents are not intended to identify those sources as the exclusive basis for the findings.

The custodian of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which the City’s decision is based is the City Clerk, or designee. Such documents and other materials are located at Sonoma City Hall, No. 1 The Plaza, Sonoma, CA 95476.

II. Decision
A. On the basis of the record before it, the City Council hereby DENIES the appeal filed by the Appellant and affirms the Planning Commission’s decision to DENY the Project for the reasons stated in the Planning Commission’s Resolution of May 16, 2024 denying the application and the following:

1. The Project is not consistent with the Municipal Code;

2. The appeal lacks sufficient evidence to substantiate the claims made therein, including those regarding the character of the surrounding neighborhood;

3. The project does not meet the findings for a Conditional Use Permit, Adaptative Reuse Findings or the Wine Tasting Use Permit.

B. It is not necessary to make any finding as to the proposed Project’s compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because CEQA does not apply to "projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves." (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080(b)(5); see also, Sunset Sky Ranch Pilots Assn. v. County of Sacramento (2009) 47 Cal.4th 902, 908; Las Lomas Land Co., LLC v. City of Los Angeles (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 837, 849.).

III. Effective Date
Under SMC Section 19.84.040, this decision of the City Council is final and is Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 105 of 269 ends

3 effective on the date of adoption.

RESOLVED AND ADOPTED this ___________________, 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
_________________________________
John Gurney, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk
Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 106 of 269 ends

CITY OF SONOMA
RESOLUTION # -2024

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SONOMA DENYING THE AMENDMENT TO THE USE PERMIT (UA 23-40) AND WINE TASTING USE PERMIT (WTUP 24-1) APPLICATIONS OF MICHAEL ROSS TO ALLOW A VACATION RENTAL AND WINE TASTING USE PERMIT AT 301 FIRST STREET WEST (APN 018-161-042).

WHEREAS, Michael Ross submitted an application for a Use Permit on December 26, 2023 and a Wine Tasting Use Permit on January 18, 2024 at 301 First Street West (APN 018-161- 042); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on April 18, 2024, to consider the merits of the Use Permit and Wine Tasting Use Permit and hear testimony in favor of, and in opposition to, the project. The Planning Commission determined that it could not make the findings necessary for approval and provided direction to staff to return to the Planning Commission with a resolution for denial.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Sonoma hereby finds and declares as follows:

I. Record

1. The record of proceedings (“Record”) upon which all findings and determinations related to the Project includes, but is not limited to:
a. The technical reports and all other documents relied upon for the proposed Categorical Exemption;
b. The staff reports, City files, records and other documents, and all other information (including written evidence and testimony) prepared for and/or submitted to the Planning Commission relating to the Project; c. All information (including written evidence and testimony) presented to the City by the staff, applicant, public, environmental consultants and sub consultants relating to the Project;
d. All information (including written evidence and testimony) presented to the City by other public agencies relating to the Project;
e. All documentary and oral evidence received at public workshops, meetings, and hearings or submitted to the City relating to the Project; f. For documentary and information purposes, the General Plan, its related environmental document, the Sonoma Municipal Code and all other City-adopted land use plans and ordinances, including, without limitation, specific plans, guidelines and ordinances;
g. All other matters of common knowledge to the Planning Commission, including, Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 107 of 269 ends

but not limited to, City, state, and federal laws, policies, rules, regulations, reports, records and projections related to development within the City of Sonoma and its surrounding areas;
h. The evidence, facts, findings and other determinations set forth in this resolution; and
i. All other documents comprising the record of proceedings pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5.

2. The findings contained in this Resolution are based upon the evidence in the entire Record relating to the Project. All the evidence supporting these findings was presented in a timely fashion, and early enough to allow adequate consideration by the City. References to specific reports and specific pages of documents are not intended to identify those sources as the exclusive basis for the findings.

II. Use Permit Approval Findings Cannot Be Made
The Planning Commission cannot make the findings necessary for approval of a Use Permit under section 19.54.040.E of the Development Code, specifically:

3. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use are not compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity The project site is zoned Medium Density Residential and is located in a transitional neighborhood which is located near the Sonoma Plaza but primarily surrounded with residential development. The site is in close proximity to several other tasting rooms on First Street West (Walt Wines, Hawk, and Auteur); however, it also abuts residential development. The site is surrounded by State Parks land directly to the north with singlefamily homes beyond, Plaza Gardens Condominium complex to the south, a single-family home and vacant lot to the east (across First Street West), and residential units within Plaza Gardens Condominium complex to the west. The proposed vacation rental and wine tasting use would expand the allowable uses and introduce potential conflicts with the adjacent residences as a result of noise and operating characteristics such as noise, trash, parking, and congestion. Therefore, the operating characteristics of the proposed use are not compatible with existing and future land uses in the vicinity as required under SMC §

19.54.040(E)(3).

III. Adaptive Reuse Findings Cannot Be Made
The Planning Commission cannot make all necessary findings to approve the adaptive reuse of an historic structure under section 19.42.030.E of the Development Code, which would be required for the proposed uses in addition to those findings required under SMC §

19.54.040 (Use permits). The alteration or adaptive reuse would not:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 108 of 269 ends

1. Enhance, perpetuate, preserve, protect, and restore those historic districts, neighborhoods, sites, structures, and zoning districts which contribute to the aesthetic and cultural benefit of the city
The property recently underwent extensive renovations under a Use Permit the Planning Commission granted in May 2018 for the restoration, seismic retrofit and adaptive reuse of the historic Ince House Building and barn. Because those renovations have been completed, the proposed project consists of a proposed expansion of allowed uses that are not compatible with the surrounding uses. Therefore, the proposed vacation rental and wine tasting use would not enhance, perpetuate, preserve, protect, and restore the Historic Train District and the neighborhood. Therefore, this finding cannot be made.

2. Stabilize and improve the economic value of historic districts, neighborhoods, sites, structures, and zoning districts
The proposed vacation rental and wine tasting use permit would not stabilize and improve the Historic Train District and neighborhood. The proposed project would expand non compatible commercial uses in a residential neighborhood and therefore this finding cannot be made.

3. Preserve diverse architectural design reflecting phases of the city’s history, and encourage design styles and construction methods and materials that are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood(s)
The project site and Cooperage building are contributing elements to the Historic Train District. However, no construction is proposed at this time. The proposed vacation rental and wine tasting use permit would not preserve the architectural design or construction methods. Therefore, this finding cannot be made.

The following additional finding is required for applications for adaptive reuse as a vacation rental:

6. Restore and rehabilitate a historic structure and/or property, excluding second units, which is listed or eligible for listing on the State Register of Historic Places, that has fallen into such a level of disrepair that the economic benefits of adaptive reuse are necessary to stem further deterioration, correct deficient conditions, or avoid demolition as implemented in the conditions of project approval The proposed project qualifies to utilize the adaptive reuse provisions under criteria 1(b), listing as a locally significant historic resource as the project site is a contributor to the Historic Train District. The Cooperage building and the adjoining barn have been found to be historically significant and recently underwent a major renovation and seismic retrofit to the unreinforced masonry structure. The recently completed renovation resulted in the stabilization and strengthening of the Cooperage building and the barn which Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 109 of 269 ends

enabled them to be used in an economically beneficial manner, rather than allowing their continued deterioration. At this time, the applicant requests to expand the allowable uses on site to add the use of the second floor as a vacation rental and the lower level as a wine tasting facility in order to help recoup unexpected expenses associated with the renovations. However, the proposed expansion of use would not restore or rehabilitate a historic structure or property that has fallen into such a level of disrepair that the economic benefits of adaptive reuse are necessary to stem further deterioration. The restoration was completed and the structure is not in a state of disrepair. The proposed expansion of use is not required to stem further deterioration, correct deficient conditions, or avoid demolition. Therefore, this finding cannot be met.

IV. Wine Tasting Use Permit Findings Cannot Be Made
The Planning Commission cannot make all necessary findings to approve a Wine Tasting Use Permit under section 19.50.120.A.5 of the Development Code. b. The proposed use is allowed with a WTUP within the applicable zoning district and complies with all applicable standards and regulations of this development code (except for approved variances and exceptions)
Pursuant to SMC Section 19.42.030 (Adaptive Reuse), the adaptive reuse of historic structures within the historic overlay district, involving uses not otherwise allowed through the base zoning may be allowed subject to review and approval of a Use Permit by the Planning Commission. The proposed project would qualify to utilize the adaptive reuse provisions under criteria 1(b), listing as a locally significant historic resource as the project site is a contributor to the Historic Train District. However, as discussed above, the required findings of project approval cannot be met for the adaptive reuse as the renovation has been completed and the proposed expansion of use would not be required to stabilize the property and protect the Historic Train District. c. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the existing and future uses in the vicinity The project site is zoned Medium Density Residential and is located in a transitional neighborhood which is located near the Sonoma Plaza but primarily surrounded with residential development. The site is in close proximity to several other tasting rooms on First Street West (Walt Wines, Hawk, and Auteur); however, it does abut residential development. The site is surrounded by State Parks land directly to the north with singlefamily homes beyond, Plaza Gardens Condominium complex to the south, a singlefamily home and vacant lot to the east (across First Street West), and residential units within Plaza Gardens Condominium complex to the west. The proposed wine tasting use would expand the allowable uses and introduce potential conflicts with the adjacent residences as a result of noise and operating characteristics such as noise, trash, parking, and congestion. Therefore, the operating characteristics of the proposed use are not compatible with existing and future land uses in the vicinity.

Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 110 of 269 ends

f. The proposed use will not adversely affect the welfare of the area residents, or result in an undue concentration of establishments dispensing alcoholic beverages in the area
The project site is zoned Medium Density Residential and is located in a transitional neighborhood which is located near the Sonoma Plaza but primarily surrounded with residential development. The site is located on the same street as several other tasting rooms on First Street West (Walt Wines, Hawk, and Auteur); however, it abuts residential development. Overall, the proposed location is not compatible with the neighborhood as the surrounding uses are residential.
g. The proposed use is located at an appropriate distance from:
i. Potential sensitive or incompatible uses such as religious facilities, schools, public parks and playgrounds, and other similar uses; and ii. The size and proposed activity level of the use will be compatible with the uses, and/or character of, the surrounding area
The proposed site is not located near any religious facilities or schools but is across the street from Depot Park. As discussed above, the site is surrounded by residential development and the proposed wine tasting use is not compatible with the site.

V. Indemnity and Time Limits
A. The developer and any successor in interest, whether in whole or in part, shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers, attorneys, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding brought against the City or its agents, officers, attorneys, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the Planning Commission’s decision at issue herein, including any approval of any portion of the project or the environmental review document(s) for the Project. This indemnification shall include damages or fees awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorney’s fees, and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with such action whether incurred by the developer, the City, and/or parties initiating or bringing such action.

B. The developer and any successor in interest, whether in whole or in part, shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its agents, employees, and attorneys for all costs incurred in additional investigation of or study of, or for supplementing, preparing, redrafting, revising, or amending any document, if made necessary by said legal action and the developer desires to pursue securing such approvals, after initiation of such litigation, which are conditioned on the approval of such documents in a form and under conditions approved by the City Attorney.

C. In the event that a claim, action or proceeding describer in no. A or B above is brought, the City shall promptly notify the developer of the existence of the claim, action, or proceeding, and the City will cooperate fully in the defense of such claim, action, or proceeding.

Nothing herein shall prohibit the City from participating in the defense of any claim, action, or proceeding; the City shall retain the right to (i) approve the counsel to so defend the Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 111 of 269 ends

City, (ii) approve all significant decisions concerning the manner in which the defense is conducted, and (iii) approve any and all settlements, which approval shall not be unreasonable withheld. The City shall also have the right not to participate in said defense, except that the City agrees to cooperate with the developer in the defense of said claim, action, or proceeding. If the City chooses to have counsel of its own to defend any claim, action, or proceeding where the developer has already retained counsel to defend the City in such matters, the fees and expenses of the counsel selected by the City shall be paid by the developer.

D. The developer and any successor in interest, whether in whole or in part, indemnifies the City for all the City’s costs, fees, and damages which the City incurs in enforcing the above indemnification provisions.

E. Unless a shorter limitation period applies, the time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6.

VI. Project Denial
Based on the determinations set forth in this Resolution, the Planning Commission hereby denies approval of a Use Permit and Wine Tasting Use Permit as set forth in the project narrative dated March 6, 2024 and project plans dated December 9, 2023.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, it is not necessary to make any finding as to the proposed Project’s compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because CEQA does not apply to "projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves." (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080(b)(5); see also, Sunset Sky Ranch Pilots Assn. v. County of Sacramento (2009) 47 Cal.4th 902, 908; Las Lomas Land Co., LLC v. City of Los Angeles (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 837, 849.) PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Sonoma on May 16, 2024 by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Recuse:

Chair Barnett
Attest
Natalie Lundeen
Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 112 of 269 ends

City of Sonoma
Appeal Application Form
7 A copy of the rights of appeal and the City’s appeal procedures may be found Ohm The fee to file an appeal must accompany this form ’
, Appeals must be ?led with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the action Appeals must address issues raised or decisions made at previous hearings. Appeal hearings cannot be used as a forum to introduce new issues
- In order for your appeal to be valid this form must be filled out completely.

Feel free to attach additional sheets or supporting documentation as may be necessary.

APPELLANT INFORMATION: (Please Print)
Leslie McQuown Name:
19320 Carriger Rd.. Sonoma, CA 95476 Address'
Name:

Address:
(707) 935-6520 Phone: Phone:
/We the undersigned do hereby appeal the decision of the:

I Planning Commission Design Review Commission
City Planner or Department Staff Other:

Adoption of Res. #02024 denying amendment to CUP and a WTUP (Title of project or application)
Located at: 301 First Street West, Sonoma
(Address)
Regarding:

Made on: May 16, 2024
(Date decision was made)
lNVe hereby declare that |/We are eligible to file an appeal because:
(Refer to Section 19.84.30-A, Eligibility,on the reverse) The appellant has an ownership interest in the real property that is the subject of the resolution being appealed.

The facts of the case and basis for the appeal are:

See Attachment "A",incorporated here by reference.
lNVe request that the Appeal Body take the following specific action(s):

Approve the requested amendment to CUP and approve the requested Wine Tasting Use Permit and give direction to staff on policy issues concerning the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance.

Signed; W WWW May 28, 2024
Signature Date
Sig nature Date
G:\FORMS\Applications\Appeal Form.doc
Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 113 of 269 ends

Sonoma MunicipalCode Chapter 19.84

APPEALS

19.84.010 Purpose of chapter. Determinations or actions of the city planner and city commissions may be appealed as provided by this chapter. (0rd. 2003—02§ 3, 2003).

19.84.020 Appeal subjects and jurisdiction. Determinations and actions that may be appealed, and the authority to act upon an appeal shall be as follows:

A. Code Administrationand Interpretation. The following determinations and actions of the city planner and department staff may be appealed to the planning commission or the design review commission, as applicable, and then to the council:

1. Determinations on the meaning or applicability of the provisions of this development code that are believed to be in error, and cannot be resolved with staff;

2. Any determination that a permit application or informationsubmitted with the application is incomplete, in compliance with state law (Government Code Section 65943); and

3. Any enforcement action in compliance with Chapter 19.90 SMC, Enforcement of Development Code Provisions.

B. Land Use Permit and Hearing Decisions Decisions of the city planner on zoning clearances may be appealed to the planning commission or the design review commission, as applicable. Decisions by a commission may be appealed to the council. (0rd. 2003-02 § 3, 2003).

19.84.30 Filing of appeals.

A. Eligibility.An appeal may be filed by:

1. Any person affected by an administrative determination or action by the city planner, as described in SMC 19.84.020(A); 2 In the case of a land use permit or hearing decision described in SMC 19.84.020(B), by anyone who, in person or through a representative, appeared at a public hearing in connection with the decision being appealed, or who otherwise informed the city in writing of the nature of their concerns before the hearing;

3. Except as othen/vise provided by law or ordinance of this city, any member of the city council may, at his/her discretion, appeal any final decision of any city commission board or official, to the city council. Ifan appeal is made by a council member, there shall be a presumption applied that the reason for the appeal is because the appealed decision or interpretation has significant and material effects on the quality of lifewithin the city of Sonoma. No inference of bias shall be made because of the appeal and no other reason need be stated by the council person in his/her notice of appeal. Appeals made according to this subsection shall not be subject to any fees.

B. Timing and Form of Appeal. Allappeals shall be submitted in writing on a city application form, and shall specificallystate the pertinent facts of the case and the basis for the appeal. Appeals shall be filed in the office of the city clerk within 15 days followingthe final date of the determination or action being appealed.

C. Fee. Appeals shall be accompanied by the filing fee set by the city councils fee resolution, except as provided for in subsection (A)(3) of this section.

D. Scope of Land Use Permit Appeals. An appeal of a decision by the city planner or commission on a land use permit shall be limitedto issues raised at the public hearing, or in writing before the hearing, or information that was not known at the time of the decision that is being appealed.

E. Effect of Filing an Appeal. The filing of a valid appeal shall have the effect of staying the issuance of any permit untilsuch time as the matter on appeal is resolved. (Ord. 2003-02 § 3, 2003).

19.84.040 Processing of appeals.

A. Scheduling of Hearing. After an appeal has been received in compliance with the procedures listed in SMC 19.84.030(B), Timing and Form of Appeal, the appeal shall be transmitted to the city planner who shall place the item on the next available commission agenda, or the city clerk shall schedule the matter for the next available council agenda, as applicable to the appeal.

B. Report. After the appeal hearing has been scheduled, the city planner shall prepare a report on the matter, and forward the report to the appropriate appeal body.

C. Joining an Appeal. Only those persons who file an appeal withinthe 15—dayappeal period in compliance with SMC 19.84.030(A), Eligibility,shall be considered the appellants of the subject permit. Any person who wishes to join an appeal shall follow the same procedures for an appellant in compliance with subsection (A) of this section. No person shall be allowed to join an appeal after the end of the 15—day appeal period.

D. Action and Findings.

1. General Procedure. The appeal body shall conduct a public hearing in compliance withChapter 19.88 SMC, Public Hearings. At the hearing, the appeal body may consider any issue involving the matter that is the subject of the appeal, in addition to the specific grounds for the appeal. a. The appeal body may affirm, affirm in part, or reverse the action, decision, or determination that is the subject of the appeal, based upon findings of fact about the particular case. The findings shall identifythe reasons for the action on the appeal and verify the compliance or noncompliance of the subject of the appeal with the provisions of this development code.
b. When reviewing a decision on a land use permit, the appeal body may adopt additional conditions of approval that may address other issues or concerns than the subject of the appeal.

2. Appeals to the City Council. a. By an Appellant. A decision by a commission may be appealed to the city council as provided by SMC 19.84.030, Filing of appeals.
b. Council's Decision Is Final. The decision of the council on an appeal shall be final. c. Tie Vote. A tie vote by the city council with regard to an appeal shall result in the affirmation of the decision of the body whose decision was appealed.

E. Effective Date of Appeal Decision. A decision by the commission is effective on the sixteenth day after the decision, when no appeal to the decision has been filed with the council. A decision by the council is effective as of the date of the decision. A final decision by the city council with regard to an appeal shall take the form of a resolution. (Ord. 2003-02 § 3, 2003).

G:\FORMS\AppIications\Appeal Form.doc
Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 114 of 269 ends

Attachment “A”
To the Appeal of Leslie McQuown
The appellant is Leslie McQuown. Pursuant to Sonoma Municipal Code ("SMC”) Section

1.24.010, “Any person dissatisfied with any final decision of any city commission, board or official may appeal such final decision to the city council. Only final decisions may be appealed to the city council.” On May 16, 2024, the Planning Commission took final action adoption Resolution No. -2024, “AResolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Sonoma Denying the Amendment to the Use Permit (UA 23-40) and Wine Tasting Use Permit (WTUP 24—1) Applications of Michael Ross to Allow a Vacation Rental and Wine Tasting Use Permit at 301 First Street West (APN 018-161—042)” (the "Resolution”). Mr. Ross filed the respective applications on behalf of Mrs. McQuown. She has an ownership interest in the subject property, and is dissatisfied with the Planning Commission’s decision.

The basis for the appeal is that the Planning Commission, in its decision, has set precedent for the interpretation of the City’sAdaptive Reuse Ordinance, SMC Section 19.42.030 (the “ARO”).

The ARO is quite literally the only tool the City has to help foster the restoration and renovation of historic structures in the City. The Commission’s decision is contrary to the best interests of historic preservation in the City. The City Council is the appropriate body to set policy in this regard. Additionally, and most importantly to the appellant, her application for a vacation rental and wine tasting use permit should be approved.

The reasons for the appeal are set forth in this Attachment “A”;the transcript of the Planning Commission proceeding submitted concurrently with this appeal (Attachment “8”); testimony to be provided at the Council’s hearing on the appeal; and such other correspondence and materials as the appellant may submit in advance of that hearing. The requisite appeal fee is being submitted to the City Clerk with this appeal.

In order to demonstrate that the Commission’s decision should be reversed as unjust and inappropriate, we have excerpted the Commission’s findings as to adaptive reuse and the WTUP and provided our response.

Resolution Section II — CUP Findings.

In Section ll of the Resolution, the Commission determined that it could not make Use Permit approval findings under section 19.54.040.E(3) ofthe SMC, specifically that “[t]he location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity.”
Because the language from the Resolution mirrors the same mischaracterization of the neighborhood discussed as to other Resolution sections copied below, we do not repeat that language here. As discussed in more detail under the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance findings below, the neighborhood in which the property is located is a vibrant, mixed-use area with considerable commercial and public-oriented uses. With appropriate conditions of approval (as originally recommended by City staff), the uses sought under the proposed permits willbe compatible with surrounding uses.

Resolution Section lll — Adaptive Reuse Ordinance Findings.

Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 115 of 269 ends

In Section lll of the Resolution, the Commission determined that it could not make the required findings under the ARC, as follows:

Resolution excerpt. “The property recently underwent extensive renovations under a Use Permithe Planning Commission granted in May 2018 for the restoration, seismic retrofit and adaptive reuse of the historic lnce [sic] House Building and barn. Because those renovations have been completed, the proposed project consists of a proposed expansion of allowed uses that are not compatible with the surrounding uses Therefore the proposed vacation rental and wine tasting use would not enhance, perpetuate, preserve, protect, and restore the Historic Train District and the neighborhood. Therefore, this finding cannot be made.” Appeal ResjiIonse‘
Unlike the PiaIIIIiIIII CoInnIisszsion’I; detern'Iination, the City of Sonoma Adaptive Reuse Ordinance 'tEi.42.tiIiItidoes not by its terms preclude adding other allowable uses to a historic I‘Iroperty‘s original adaptive reuse use permit following the granting of the initial use permit or completion of the initial project.

The SlVlCdoes not require Adaptive Reuse applicants to apply for 100% of allowabie uses at the time of initial subrnittal. AI'Ipiyingthis logic would compel Adaptive Reuse applicants to apply fOI tOOO/noftall allowable uses attthe initial use permit submittal to maintain flexibility in the ftmin) n3 I:I:IIIIIiziIIgtthe pots ntiol tOI untoies een ciIrz‘sIunI tances during construction This appioach would I.InI“;IeI es.saiiiy magnify the numbei of potential impacts at the initialsubmittal and lead to denial of AOR applications by the Planning Commission. Insinuating this “Catch 22" into the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance would be a significant disincentive for the private sector to invest in, protect, enhance, and preserve historic structures in the City of Sonoma. "the ARC) is the City oi Sonorna’s only policy incentive supporting the private sectors investment in the pI'Iszservritionand repair of historic structures. Historic renovation projects are fraught with complexity and unI‘liscovered costs that are simply not foreseeable at the time of use permit approvzztl cost:swhich only the property ownei Ir~nuIt bear. Owners are entitled to request an amendment land , quuiie the tiexibiiityt 0 seek appioval of additional allowable uses for these historic properties. the City can then approve such additional uses in its discretion. instead, the Planning Commission’s decision unilaterally bars even the possibility of any such request.

2. Stabilize and improve the economic value of historic distriCts, neighborhoods, sites, structures, and zoning districts.

Resolution Excerpt: “The proposed vacation rental and wine tasting use permit would not stabilize and improve the HistoricTrain District and neighborhood. The proposed project would expand non-compatible commercial uses in a residential neighborhood and therefore this finding cannot be made."
Appeal Response:

Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 116 of 269 ends

The proposed vacation rental and wine tasting uses are compatible with the Historic Train District and the neighborhood. The Ice House has been a commercial building on this block for over tot) years, significantly predating many nearby residential uses. The second floor of the structure was a bed and breakfast prior to this owner. The lce House is part of a dynamic mixed— use neigl’iborhood which includes restaurants, high occupancy sporting events, picnics, wine tasting public assembly, residential and farmers market uses less than a five—minutewalk from the lce l~louse front door, The west end of Der-mtPark and ball field is one of the most intensively used outdoor spaces in the City of Sonorna. Hundreds of people enjoy and use this area every week, On the Fourth of July weekend, thousands of people gather in this neighborhood.

Resolution Excerpt: “The project site and Cooperage building are contributing elements to the Historic Train District. However, no construction is proposed currently. The proposed vacation rental and wine tasting use permit would not preserve the architectural design or construction methods. Therefore, this finding cannot be made.”
Appeal ROijJOlrse:

This adaptive ri-i'use [.)l<j)jti3t‘.l approved by the 20'l8 use permit saved the Cooperage Building, assured its future existence, and j:‘)reservr;><:l its diverse architectural design as a contributor to the ireigl'rbort'rooitl.The SMC does not require Adaptive Reuse applicants to apply for 100% of allowable uses at the time of initialsubmittal. The proposed modifications in use are necessary now to provide the applicant future flexibility of use should she desire to retain the property and add value sl’rould she sell the property to attest the extensive costs of preservation The Planning Commission‘s determination that the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance is static and applicable only to a single use permit application does not address the complexity and cost of historic preservation. it sends an entirely wrong signal to anyone contemplating historic preservation: you have one shot at getting your uses correct ~ and don’t come back for anything else regardless of what unforeseen circumstances you might face.

The following additional finding is required for applications for adaptive reuse as a vacation rental:

Resolution Excerpt: “The proposed project qualifies to utilize the adaptive reuse provisions under criteria 1(b), listing as a locally significant historic resource as the project site is a contributor to the HistoricTrain District. The Cooperage building and the adjoining barn have been found to be historically significant and recently underwent a major renovation and seismic retrofit to the unreinforced masonry structure. The recently completed renovation resulted in the stabilization and strengthening of the Cooperage building and the barn which enabled them to be used in an economically beneficial manner, rather than allowing their continued deterioration.

Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 117 of 269 ends

At this time, the applicant requests to expand the allowable uses on site to add the use of the second floor as a vacation rental and the lower level as a wine tasting facility to help recoup unexpected expenses associated with the renovations.

However, the proposed expansion of use would not restore or rehabilitate a historic structure or property that has fallen into such a level of disrepair that the economic benefits of adaptive reuse are necessary to stem further deterioration. The restoration was completed, and the structure is not in a state of disrepair. The proposed expansion of use is not required to stem further deterioration, correct deficient conditions, or avoid demolition. Therefore, this finding cannot be met.”
/\ppez;il I'Qespt‘nise:
the ARC does not place a time value on when allowable uses can or cannot be added to an adajittiVe reuse use jt>ermit It the owner could have predicted the future, the original use permit would have included the wine tasting and vacation rental uses. The estimated economic benefits necessary to even ren’iotely offset the costs of preservation at the time of the initial use permit approval were unknown. As a reminder, the restoration just got underway at the li>eginningof the Clovid pandemic. This was a period of intense societal stress and was incredibly costly and cliszzrujt.)tiveto construction projects in Sonoma and across the nation, Applying a “one and done“ :zipproacl’ito establisl'iing the econoi'nics of preservation projects does not reflect it‘ioreality ot complex historic preservation processes.

Resolution Section IV. Wine Tasting Use Permit Findings. in Section IVof the Resolution, the Planning Commission determined that it could not make all necessary findings to approve a Wine Tasting Use Permit under section 19.50.120.A.5 of the SMC.
b. The proposed use is allowed with a WTUP within the applicable zoning district and complies with all applicable standards and regulations of this development code (except for approved variances and exceptions).

Resolution excerpt: “Pursuant to SMC Section 19.42.030 (Adaptive Reuse), the adaptive reuse of historic structures within the historic overlay district, involving uses not otherwise allowed through the base zoning may be allowed subject to review and approval of a Use Permit by the Planning Commission. The proposed project would qualify to utilize the adaptive reuse provisions under criteria 1(b), listing as a locally significant historic resource as the project site is a contributor to the Historic Train District. However, as discussed above, the required findings of project approval cannot be met for the adaptive reuse as the renovation has been completed and the proposed expansion of use would not be required to stabilize the property and protect the HistoricTrain District.”
Appeal Response
The ARC) does not j,>lacea time value on when allowable uses can or cannot be added to an adaptive reuse use permit. The ARO benefits do not stop at construction completion. Not all ARO allowable uses were believed to be necessary at the time of the initial use permit Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 118 of 269 ends

stirilitmtionThe ice House is now a contributor to the rhetoric Train District only because the current owner stabilized and preserved it for the future. The spirit of the ARC) is to protect Sonoiria’s l'tlStOl'tti; legacy. it is conceivable at sent the current owner‘s commitment to strengthen and restore the structure, following another major earthquake the Ice House could have been a pile of rocks on the ground.
c. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the existing and future uses in the vicinity.

Resolution excerpt: “The project site is zoned Medium Density Residential and is located in a transitional neighborhood which is located near the Sonoma Plaza but primarily surrounded with residential development. The site is in close proximityto several other tasting rooms on First Street West (Walt Wines, Hawk, and Auteur); however, it does abut residential development.

The site is surrounded by State Parks land directly to the north with single family homes beyond, Plaza Gardens Condominium complex to the south, a single family home and vacant lot to the east (across First Street West), and residential units within Plaza Gardens Condominium complex to the west. The proposed wine tasting use would expand the allowable uses and introduce potential conflicts with the adjacent residences as a result of noise and operating characteristics such as noise, trash, parking, and congestion. Therefore, the operating characteristics of the proposed use are not compatible with existing and future land uses in the vicinity.”
Appeal Response:

This denial poinl miscl‘taracterizes the nature of the neighborhood. As previously explained (and repeated here), First Street West north of the Plaza is a dynamic mixed—useneighborhood which includes residential, restaurant, sporting events, picnic, wine tasting, public assembly, residential and laimers ntarket uses less than a five—minutewalk from the Ice House front door.

This area oi Depot Park is one of the most intensively used outdoor spaces in the City of Sonoma. l~tundre s ol people enjoy and use this area every week. On the Fourth of July weekend, thousands of people gather in this neighborhood. Adding two quiet uses to the Ice House would have minimal if any ii’npact to this busy neighborhood. f. The proposed use will not adversely affect the welfare of the area residents or result in an undue concentration of establishments dispensing alcoholic beverages in the area.

Resolution excerpt: "The project site is zoned Medium Density Residential and is located in a transitional neighborhood which is located near the Sonoma Plaza but primarily surrounded with residential development. The site is located on the same street as several other tasting rooms on First Street West (Walt Wines, Hawk, and Auteur); however, it abuts residential development.

Overall, the proposed location is not compatible with the neighborhood as the surrounding uses are residential.”
Appeal Response:

As above. this point miscl‘raracterizes the nature of the neighborhood. The project is compatible with the ireighborhood. While the property is located adjacent to rnulti—familyresidential to the south, a thCEtl’ttlot and single family residential to the north, the neighborhood is incredibly varied up and rilowrtthe block. The proposed use pales in comparison to the intensity of use i
Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 119 of 269 ends

already adjacent to the residential uses just to the north, The potential acoustic impacts of vacation rental and wine tasting uses can be attenuated and controlled by conditions of approval.

9. The proposed use is located at an appropriate distance from: i. Potential sensitive or incompatible uses such as religious facilities, schools, public parks and playgrounds, and other similar uses; and ii. The size and proposed activity level of the use will be compatible with the uses, and/or character of, the surrounding area.

Resolution excerpt: “The proposed site is not located near any religious facilities or schools but is across the street from Depot Park. As discussed above, the site is surrounded by residential development and the proposed wine tasting use is not compatible with the site.” Appeal Response:
this is the same point discussed above under (9), and we incorporate our response under (g) here by reference,
Conclusion.

The subject property is located in a busy, mixed-use area of the City. The requested uses are compatible with other uses in the vicinity with appropriate conditions of approval. The ARO does not preclude amendments to previously issued use permits. We respectfully request that the City Council approve the requested permits and provide any direction it may wish to staff on policy issues with the ARO.
l
I
l
Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 120 of 269 ends

10 ll
l2
13 14
15 l6
l7
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
ATTACHMENT "B"
City of Sonoma Planning Commission
Item 4.2
301 First Street West in Sonoma
April 18, 2024

Page 1 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299-5127
Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 121 of 269 ends

10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: All right, we're
now going to move on to item 4.2, which is
discussion, consideration, possible action to
adopt a resolution approving the use permit and
wine tasting use permit application of Michael
Ross, no stranger to this Commission, to allow a
vacation rental and wine tasting facility 301
First Street West. And now we'll have the staff
report, please.

ASSOIATE PLANNER KRISTINA TIERNEY:

Thank you, Commissioners. I'm going to start
with a little bit of history on the property.

It's been before the commission and design review
multiple times in the last five or so years.

The primary permit that is governing
the property at the moment is a May 2018 adaptive
reuse permit that authorized the restoration,
seismic, retrofit, and adaptive reuse of the
Cooperage and the barn.

What is approved in the 2018 use permit
is limited retail use of the first floor,
residential use of the second floor, the use of
the existing barn to convert it to an accessory
dwelling unit, and also approve the use of
seismic retrofit credits for parking.

Page 2 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 122 of 269 ends

10 ll
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 There are specific conditions of
approval to the 2018 use permit that are
identified below. Most specific to our
discussion this evening is the first one about
the limited retail use on the ground floor, the
hours of operation, and the fact that there is a
condition of approval that states that further
use of the property for a short—term vacation
rental shall be prohibited.

In general, the process that we're
going through this evening is similar to what we
do for many use permits that they come before the
Commission for conditions of approval to be
amended. And that is in line with our standard
practices that we do for a restaurant, for wine
tasting use permits, and things like that.

So, the project site as it stands today
it's a 7,500 square foot parcel that is developed
with a 5,000 square foot historic two—story
building. There is a 1,600 square foot barn,
part of that barn is an 800 square foot ADU as
well as a common fitness area. And I believe the
detached garage was taken down, so my apologies
for that.

Page 3 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 123 of 269 ends

10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 2%
25 The property is a contributing resource
to the Sonoma Depot Historic District as a
commercial building. And so, that’s really the
nexus for the adaptive reuse provision which is
contained in our historic resource code, or
excuse me, or historic preservation code in the
Sonoma Municipal Code which is 1942.

So, the first story was constructed in
1906 and the second story in 1923. There are
three tandem uncovered parking spaces that were
approved through that use permit in 2018. The
applicant is currently before the Planning
Commission to request an amendment to the 2018
use permit to expand to have a wine tasting
facility on the lower floor as well as a vacation
rental on the upper floor.

So, the vacation rental component would
be a short—term rental it —— totaling 2,500
square feet approximately. There are two
bedrooms as well as the library that would be
accessible for a vacation rental. And the
narrative states that guests would be limited to
one to six people.

Our code does have specific
requirements for vacation rentals that have

Page 4 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 124 of 269 ends

10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
limits on the number of people who can stay based
on the number of bedrooms, and that's been
included as a condition of approval.

Regarding the wine tasting use permit.

The Proposal is to have shared space with that
existing allowed retail use on that lower floor,
and that it would be sort of a shared space with
retail as well as a wine tasting facility. And
that would be the whole lower floor that's being
requested at 2,532 square feet.

The requested hours of operation are 9
to 7:00 p.m., six days a week and anticipated two
to four employees. Staff has recommended a
condition of approval to shorten the hours of
operation for the wine tasting facility to shut
that down at 5:00.

The adaptive reuse provision of the
code is in Chapter 19.42.030, and it has created
a permitting process to allow the adapter for use
of historic structures that are not otherwise
allowed in the zoning district. And just for
everyone's edification the zoning for this
property is medium density residential.

And that really is kind of the crux of
the issue this evening that we have a

Page 5 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 866—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 125 of 269 ends

10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
residentially zoned property that historically
has been used for commercial and trying to
balance the competing needs of the neighbors and
the property and respecting the historic nature
of the structure as well.

So, the —~ there is only certain
structures can utilize this provision of the
code. They have to be officially designated for
the state or national register, or they can have
potential historic value. Vacation rentals
cannot be structures that just have historic
value, they have to be officially designated.

This property does qualify as a contributing
element to our Historic Train District.

So, our code breaks down allowable
residential uses and non—residential uses. We're
talking with commercial uses today. So, what is
allowed under the code is to request in a zoning
district that doesn't normally allow it the use
of a bed and breakfast, a hotel, limited retail,
mixed use, professional and service—oriented
offices, restaurants, vacation rentals, and wine
tasting facilities.

In order to try to balance the request
of the applicant with the constraints of the
Page'6
Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299-5127
Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 126 of 269 ends

10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 neighborhood, there are recommended conditions of
approval for the Planning Commission to consider.

The commercial use of the ground floor
would be restricted to retail and wine tasting as
proposed. I mentioned the limiting wine tasting
hours to 5:00 p.m. Continuing the ban on special
events and live music that's in the 2018 use
permit.

And there's also additional
requirements for on—site bike parking and for
complimentary bikes for the vacation rental to
try to address parking and congestion in the
downtown. We also have a requirement for a
property management plan to govern how the rental
would be managed and to help provide a point of
contact for the neighbors to address concerns.

In order for the Planning Commission to
approve the project this evening, findings need
to be made for the use permit, the adaptive reuse
permit, as well as the wine tasting use permit.

And I'll just take a second to run through them.

For the use permit we have four findings that
need to be made.

One that the proposed use is consistent
with the general plan and the specific plan.

Page 7 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 127 of 269 ends

10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
That the proposed use is allowed with a
conditional use permit. The location, size,
design, and operating characteristics are
compatible with existing and future land uses in
the vicinity. The proposed use will not impair
the architectural integrity and character of the
zoning district.

And then, we have six additional
findings for the adaptive reuse. And what what's
being requested is that the 2018 adaptive reuse
permit be amended and that's really one of the
topics of conversation this evening is how do we
address this request that has not been before the
Planning Commission before.

The 2018 permit has been vested it
obtained building permits and there's been
building permit final for the entire building at
this point. So, the findings for adaptive reuse
or does the project enhance, perpetuate,
preserve, protect, and restore the historic
districts neighborhood sites, structures, and
zoning districts which contribute to the
aesthetic and cultural benefit of the city.

Stabilize and improve the economic
value of historic districts, neighborhoods,

Page 8 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 128 of 269 ends

10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
sites, structures, and zoning districts.

Preserve diverse architectural design reflecting
phases of the city's history and encourage design
styles and construction methods and materials
that are compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood.

Promote and encourage continued private
ownership and utilization of structures now so
owned and used. Substantially comply with the
applicable Secretary of the Interior standards
and guidelines for the treatment of historic
properties. And there‘s a final finding that is
required for the adaptive reuse for a vacation
rental.

And that is to restore and rehabilitate
a historic structure and/or property excluding
second units which is listed or eligible for
listing on the State Register of Historic places
that has fallen into such a level of disrepair
that the economic benefits of the adaptive reuse
are necessary to stem further deterioration,
correct deficient conditions, or avoid demolition
as implemented in the conditions of project
approval.

Page 9 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299-5127
Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 129 of 269 ends

10 ll
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 I think the Commission is fairly
familiar with the wine tasting use permit
findings of approval, so I won't dwell on those.

But we're really looking for —~ the question
comes down to are there potentially sensitive or
incompatible uses. And in architecture ——
there's not —— no changes to the architecture.

So, staff has provided recommendation
and resolution to support approval of the project
and also has provided alternative recommendations
for discussion of the Planning Commission. The
first recommendation is to approve the project as
proposed. And also, the number two option is to
recommend modifications or to provide direction
to staff to deny the amendment to the use permit
or a council —— Commission discretion. So,
staff's available for questions.

CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Okay, thank you.

Before we move to staff questions, I'll pose my
now perennial question on applications which is
if any members of the Commission have had exparte
communications with interested parties on this
project?
Now would be the opportunity to
disclose those conversations. Which should

Page 10 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 866—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 130 of 269 ends

10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
include generally who you met with, the general
topic of conversation, and whatever else that you
feel the other members of the Commission and the
public would like to know about your
conversation.

COMMISSIONER SHEILA O'NEILL: I have
spoken with Jim Bohar about a month ago regarding
the neighborhood ——
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: He's not an
interested party.

COMMISSIONER SHEILA O'NEILL: Okay.

I've met with Tom Thornley on two separate
occasions. The first was following the Sonoma
League for historic preservation award ceremony
where I briefly spoke to you. And the second
time was up at the property on Brazil Avenue that
you're working, that Tom's working on, and we did
discuss this project briefly. I have seen the
property when it was on Broker Tour as well.

CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Thank you.

Anyone else? Mr. Barbose?
COMMISIONER STEVE BARBOSE: Apparently
not since neighbors don't count?
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: NO, my
understanding and you can correct me if I'm

Page 11 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299~5127
Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 131 of 269 ends

10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
wrong. And we have Mr. Ruderman on Zoom, do we
not Natalie?
PERMIT TECHNICIAN NATALIE LUNDEEN:

Yes.

CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Okay. My
understanding that the definition of an
interested party is a party with a financial
interest in an application or a project. Now,
if Mr. Ruderman is listening, he can correct me.

I don't see him on my screen.

CITY ATTORNEY DAVID RUDERMAN: That is
correct. Can you not hear me?
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Yes, I can hear
you.

CITY ATTORNEY DAVID RUDERMAN: Okay.

Yeah, that is correct. It includes people who
have a financial interest as that term is defined
in the Political Reform Act. So, that would be
individuals who own property within 500 feet of
the site ~—
CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: SO, that it would
also include neighbors within 500 feet? They
would be considered —— MR. RUDERMAN: Correct.

Page 12 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 132 of 269 ends

10 ll
12 13
14 15
l6
17 18
19 2O
21 22
23 24
25 CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: —— interested
parties. Okay. So, I was wrong.

MR. RUDERMAN: Correct.

CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Mr. Bohar does
qualify.

COMMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: Okay.

Well, I spoke with Jim Bohar yesterday and he
shared with me a number of concerns that he had
about this project. And I can elaborate on those
but it‘s basically opposition to the wine tasting
and the vacation rental.

CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Okay. Others?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEW WIRICK: I Spoke
with Mr. Bohar I believe it was Monday around the
exact same topics, his issues around neighborhood
compatibility. And he introduced me to his
neighbor the gentleman here in the brown blazer
in front whose name I'm forgetting, Michael
Heplan.

CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: All right.

COMMISSIONER MATTHEW WIRICK: That is
it.

CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: And I also had a
conversation with Mr. Bohar in which he expressed
his concerns about the project as a neighbor.

Page 13 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 133 of 269 ends

10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
Anyone else? Okay. Well, now we'll go back to
the questions for staff regarding the staff
report.

By the way I asked that —~ I asked our
development director to have Mr. Ruderman present
at the meeting because I believe that there are
potentially some issues that require a legal
analysis to be able to deal with some of these
application requests. So, keep in mind that we
have our city attorney, land use attorney present
and you can ask him questions that come up in the
discussion as well. Okay. Any questions for
staff on this by members? Yes.

VICE CHAIR DONNA DAMBACH: Yeah, I'm
struggling to understand the discrepancy between
the 2018 permit. In particular item C which says
no food shall be prepared and I don't didn't see
that on a condition for approval in this. And
secondly E that says there will not be vacation
rentals. So, I'm wondering if the adaptive use
clause was available in 2018 why it wasn't used
and how do we —— how can we resolve these?
ASSOCIATE PLANNER KRISTINA TIERNEY: It
was a use. So, that was the mechanism for the
approval in 2018.

Page 14 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 866—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 134 of 269 ends

10 ll
12 l3
14 15
l6
17 18
19 2O
21 22
23 24
25 COMMISSIONER DONNA CAMBACH: SO, but
there are some conditions then —— ASSOCIATE PLANNER KRISTINA TIERNEY:

There were there were conditions. I wasn't ~— I
wasn't there at the time. My understanding for
the kitchen, the limitation on the kitchen, is
because it's not a commercial kitchen. So, it
was not permitted through the county through
Environmental Health Services.

And so, in order to use it for a
commercial purpose they need to go through
additional permitting.

VICE CHAIR DONNA DAMBACH: Sure. I
guess that's knowing now that the adaptive reuse
was used in 2018 again, I'm questioning what's
different now?
ASSOCIATE PLANNER KRISTINA TIERNEY: I
VICE CHAIR DONNA DAMBACH: Because they
went a vacation rental now. And —~ ASSOCIATE PLANNER KRISTINATIERNEY:

Yes, they put —— they're asking for modifications
to expand the uses on the lower floor to allow
the wine tasting use permit and to allow the

Page 15 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 866—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 135 of 269 ends

10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
vacation rental on the Upper Floor instead of it
being a primary residence.

COMISSIONER DONNA DAMBACH: And then,
again, this the preparation of food was
explicitly called out in 2018 but I didn't notice
it in the new proposal.

ASSOCIATE PLANNER KRISTINA TIERNEY: I
don't think we have changed anything with there,
it might have been moved down but the there is a
condition of approval that would require them to
obtain all applicable permits. And so, in order
to use the kitchen, it's a health department
issue, it's not a use permit issue.

VICE CHAIR DONNA DAMBACH: Okay. Thank
you.

CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Any other
questions? Mr. Barbose.

COMMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: I find
myself struggling to grasp the historical
underpinnings for the adaptive reuse here. This
isn't listed in any official registry either
state or local, is it?
ASSOCIATE PLANNER KRISTINA TIERNEY: It
is eligible for listing in the state as part of
the Train District.

Page 16 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 866—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 136 of 269 ends

10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 COMMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: Eligible
but not listed.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR JENNIFER
GATES: It's listed locally.

ASSOCIATE PLANNER KRISTINA TIERNEY:

It's listed locally.

COMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: And Where
is that?
ASSOCIATE PLANNER KRISTINA TIERNEY: On
the city council adopted, what year the train
District, '22 ——
COMMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: Okay.

ASSOCIATE PLANNER KRISTINA TIERNEY: We
did the Train District.

COMMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: In 2022?
ASSOCIATE PLANNER KRISTINA TIERNEY: I
think so.

COMMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: SO, What
was the historical underpinning for the adaptive
reuse in 2018?
ASSOCIATE PLANNER KRISTINA TIERNEY: It
—— there was an —— the analysis was based on the
League For Historic Preservation survey in 2018.

COMMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: Which said
what?

Page 17 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 137 of 269 ends

10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
ASSOCIATE PLANNER KRISTINA TIERNEY:

That it is historic. So, it's the way and I'll
let Jennifer comment on how it goes from there
and what the differences are, it's more her area
of expertise.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR JENNIFER
GATES: So, I did not look at the original
application and their —— and how they applied it.

My understanding is that prior to the city
undertaking an actual survey and completion of
the survey for the Train Historic District, the
League had done the survey. There's, sorry I get
them confused I apologize in advance, or the
Historical Society did the original survey. And
it's been done. So, this was the Cooperage in
the past used to make wine barrels, but then even
prior to that it was used for warehousing for the
train'station.

So, that history was already
established and that would be my understanding is
that's what they probably used in the
determination that it was eligible at that time
for listing. The ordinance itself has not
changed since 2016. We did look that up to see

Page 18 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 138 of 269 ends

10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
if things had changed since then. But it is now
a listed property.

COMMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: IS there
any way to know what the Commission was thinking
when it previously said no short—term rentals?
ASSOCIATE PLANNER KRISTINA TIERNEY:

Oh, so I believe that the historic resource
evaluation should be in the agenda packet. I'm
double—checking. And my under —— I obviously was
not there at the time, but the vacation rental
ban had already taken place. And so, my
understanding and I venture the Applicant can
comment too.

And this is just historically how we
handled projects at the time was if something
wasn't allowed we tried to specifically state it
in the conditions of approval. So, there have
been numerous use permits that have had to come
through the Planning Commission. One that comes
to mind is Vello where it said there shall be no
alcohol.

And we've had numerous use permits
where there were kind of restrictions that maybe
didn't necessarily need to be there. My guess is
just that the culture at the time we had the

Page 19 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]
Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 139 of 269 ends

10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 vacation rental ban that was enacted in 2017, and
that you know the provision is to try to support
housing and not vacation rentals. But that's
just my best guess.

COMMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: Okay, I
have one last no I have one last question and
that is what is the current status of the cities
allowing short~term vacation rentals? Are there
any circumstances under which people get those
put in the adaptive reuse to the side?
ASSOCIATE PLANNER KRISTINA TIERNEY:

So, they're banned citywide. The existing
permitted vacation rentals we have a list. Some
of them were legal non—conforming, some of them
obtained use permits, those are allowed to
continue provided they meet certain parameters.

They have to maintain a business license, pay
TOT, there's you know 10 or 15 requirements.

They are transferable from property
owner to property owner and then the only way to
get a new one is really through the adaptive
reuse provisions.

COMMISSIONER STEVE BARBOSE: Thank you.

Page 20 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 866-299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 140 of 269 ends

10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
l8
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 CHAIR LARRY BARNETT: Okay. Any other,
we're in the questions section of the program,
not comments.

ASSOCIATE PLANNER KRISTINA TIERNEY:

And I would, if I could just direct so the DPR
forms for the Train District are in the agenda
packet if anyone is interested in seeing those.

CHAIR LARRY BARNiTT: Okay. Any other
questions specifically for staff? No. Okay.

Then we will open this up for public comment.

How many people are interested in speaking
tonight?
All right, we're going to give the
Applicant a little more time because there may be
questions from the Commission for the Applicant
and in general, I would ask members of the public
who want to address the Commission to try to keep
your comments to 3 minutes. I am not going to
ask that the timer be used, but I will be
watching.

And if you start to go on too long, I’m
going to interrupt you. But I don't like the
timer. So, let's start the public hearing. And
Mr. Ross.

Page 21 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 141 of 269 ends

10 ll
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
MICHAEL ROSS: Good evening. I'd like
to present a brief PowerPoint presentation if
possible. And hopefully, it'll present.

Excellent.

Well, first off, I'd like to thank you
all for this opportunity. I'm here on behalf of
the owner, Leslie, and Mac McQuown. I am the
architect for the project. And before I make
this presentation, I would like to thank this
Commission as well as the Design Review
Commission and the Sonoma League For Historic
Preservation for all of its support for this
project over the years.

And we really believe this project has
been a wonderful addition now that it's complete
and the construction's over to the neighborhood.

And I'd like to provide a little bit of context
in the spirit of this request tonight.

Our Michael Woods real estate land use
attorney is going to speak to the consistency
with the development code and Tom Thornley the
contractor for the project that did an excellent
job for it will provide an overview of some of
the complexities and the issues that were
encountered during the construction process.

Page 22 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 866—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 142 of 269 ends

10 11
12 13
14 15
l6
17 18
19 2O
21 22
23 24
25 But first of all, I'd like to address
the notion that Commissioner Barbose raised
about is this a historic building or not. And
in 2018 the owner commissioned Juliana Inman
architect and resource, historic resource
consultant for it.

And there's an HRE, historic resource
evaluation that was the basis of the 2018
proposal. And that found and I'm quoting here
that "the HRE found the icehouse building to be
an altered vernacular two~story stone and wood
frame building which exhibited good physical
integrity and was eligible," quote ”to retain its
1978 listing in the California Register Of
Historic Resources."
So, in that regard it's a historic
building in addition to it being a major
contributing factor to the Railroad Historic
District. Okay. So, the reasoning for this
application is during the construction period the
cost of the preservation and of the project was
considerable in time and money totaling
approximately $6 million above the other cost for
the project.

Page 23 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—299—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 143 of 269 ends

10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
The award—winning outcome, however, was
phenomenal. And the property is now for sale and
the goal of this application is to partially
offset the cost of preserving it that were
encountered along the way. And there were issues
that were totally unknown in 2018 that were
discovered a afterwards during this construction
period that if we would have known then what we
know now we probably would have asked for the
wine tasting use permit as well as the vacation
rental.

So, I know this is an odd thing to come
back retroactively and ask you for this
consideration, but it's really as a method to
increase the value potentially of the property to
assist in its resale.

And we believe that it's a modest
change in use. It's all indoors, it's probably
in the most acoustically attenuated building in
Sonoma. These thick, thick stone walls, no
outdoor use is being proposed, no food service is
being proposed, and we see the upstairs vacation
rental actually being linked to who the potential
owner of whoever the winery is and that there's
synergy between those two spaces. Okay?

Page 24 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Ca1€ndar—[email protected]—299—5 127
Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 144 of 269 ends

10 ll
12 l3
14 15
l6
l7
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 So, I'm going to provide an overview
some of this. You may already know so please
bear with me. In the 1900s the stone building
that we now call the icehouse was formerly known
as the Cooperage. It was built in 1906, the
stone building, the upper floor was not built
until 1923.

The upper floor is a wood frame stucco
clad residence. At that point there was living
above and work below, not unlike what were we're
proposing here, the potential to live above and
work below. The icehouse was —— has been in
continuous commercial use for approximately 114
years.

It has been used as an ice
manufacturing plant, a Cooperage, a brewery, an
armory, a US Naval Training Center, a garage, and
recently as an artist studio and bed and
breakfast. The bed and breakfast was eventually
shut down because it was an unreinforced masonry
building. In '19 or excuse me in 2014 a 6.0
earthquake severely damaged this building. The
Nappa earthquake we all remember it.

And at this point the building actually
needed rescue more so than preservation and it

Page 25 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
Calendar—[email protected]—5127
Agenda Item #8.1:

Page 145 of 269 ends

10 11
12 13
14 15
l6
l7
18 19
2O
21 22
23 24
25 was in danger of collapse should another
earthquake come. The use was vacated and boarded
up, it was temporarily shored and stabilized, and
in 2018 we requested the use permit, and we thank
you for approving that.

And what we're asking you for now is
for us to modestly expand that use permit. All
other conditions of approval of the use permit
remain unchanged excepting for the indoor wine
tasting use permit and the ability to have the
vacation rental upstairs.

So, what are the complexities that we
found along the way? Tom can speak to this a
little later, but one of the first things that
were discovered is that there is an artesian well
that was under the structural slab. There was an
event where the jackhammer fell through and
almost the laborer too. It's 22 feet deep and
it's filled with water.

And we decided to preserve it and it
was a costly endeavor. And since this is a
public access first floor with the current use
permit, we thought it would actually be something
that would be unique that people could understand
that this building wasn't actually a Cooperage

Page 26 ends

Sonoma City CouncilJuly 17, 2024

Sonoma City Council
July 17, 2024